Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

16 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 15	January 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

(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 [1][2] and also there is an occultation prediction [3]. --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.[4] Praemonitus (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International 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) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship disclaimer: In the past I was the webmaster for the International Discworld Convention. The website is hosted on my servers so I still have an indirect connection to them.

Primary sources for the convention are:

https://2018.dwcon.org/
https://2020.dwcon.org/ redirects to - https://2022.dwcon.org/ because the convention had to be skipped that year because of COVID
https://2022.dwcon.org/
https://2024.dwcon.org/

Of course these aren't independent sources, so I understand they don't count :)

It's quite an important convention for fans of the Discworld series of books and other things related to Terry Pratchett. Terry used to attend the conventions until because of his illness the travel became too much for him. And of course the conventions are organised in agreement with the Pratchett estate.

What kind of secondary sources would be appropriate for an event like this? Sjmsteffann (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would a story published in The Guardian like this one from Ian Stewart (mathematician) or this letter from Elizabeth Alway be helpful? Or a Reddit discussion? Are things like Fancyclopedia or Fanlore useful?

Willing to help make the article better, but careful because I used to be involved and I don't want to mess up or break rules :) Sjmsteffann (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sjmsteffann: WP:Self-published sources are usually not used in Wikipedia, because there is no supervising authority which ensures reliability. So Reddit and wikis (which I think Fancyclopedia and Fanlore are) are not helpful. The Guardian on the other hand is an accepted reliable source according to WP:Perennial sources. There is some qualification there for opinion pieces. So I assume these still contribute to notability, as a reliable source has decided to spend space on the topic, and such pieces just have to be used in accordance with WP:RSOPINION, but additional input would be welcome. Daranios (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Discworld, or possibly keep, depending on the discussion of sources above. The Hollywood Reporter article only briefly mentions the convention, but can have the same use in the Discworld article than it has in the web article: the convention verifies the importance of the fandom for this fictional universe. More importantly, Fans and Fandom, p. 186-187, which as far as I can tell is a personal overview over such things by a reporter and editor in just that field, has a page on the convention. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Discworld convention is still a premier event in the UK (which attracts attendants from across the Anglosphere), even though Terry passed away ten years ago. It is one...I think of five...current Discworld conventions (not including the North American one, which may or may not return). Terry Pratchett was once the best selling author in the UK (and routinely hit number one spot in the main North American charts) for a time. TP's works routinely pops up in The Best Lists. The legacy of the works is being continued with the production company Narrativia, which is currently adapting Terry's works to screen and telly, Good Omens being a recent large scale production, of this sort, and with books being released with the blessing of Narrativia. The Convention actually grew in the years after Terry’s passing and currently shows no sign of diminishing, it's the opposite, as such it is one of the largest, if not the largest (I don't know for sure) UK conventions of it's type based on a sole author's works.Halbared (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio–Austin metroplex

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

Requesting deletion due to the fact that Austin and San Antonio are over an hour apart among other reasons. In order for a polycentric metropolitan area to occur, a steady back and forth commuting pattern must be established between the 2 cities or between 2 or more of their respective suburbs. While not impossible, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this will ever come to pass, therefore the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject is unfortunately misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana2001 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask

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

I am not aware of a nask called Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht. There is a nask simply called Hadokht as well as two fragments called Nerangestan and Herbedestan. However, the latter two aren't nasks but once formed parts of the Husparam nask. In addition, they are/were not Zand but Zand-Avesta texts meaning, they contained both the Avestan original jointly with the Pahlavi commentary.

Since the text only provides a single vague reference, which doesn't contain anything about a nask called Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht; it is not possible to verify what the intent of the article is.

To clarify, I do think that topics like the Hadokht nask, the Husparam nask, the Nerangestan text and the Herbedestan text do deserve a dedicated Wikipedia article. I just don't think that the current one is one, can be changed into one, or even has any identifiable topic to begin with. If these points are true, the article should probably be deleted.Kjansen86 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I Googled the phrase "Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht nask" and apart from pages which derive from this article, I found this phrase only in one other source: "Avestan Architecture: A Descriptive Etymological Lexicon". Therein, the full sentence is "In addition to that, Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask and some other scattered documents are considered as Avestan sources." I also saw that this reference was originally used as a source in this Wikiepdia article to demonstrate the existence of such a work. This source was deleted since then for unclear reasons.

Now, several things seem clear from that. First, the article seems to be based on the misunderstanding that the above sentence is refering to a single work called "Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask"; even though it clear from the context (as well as from reality) that three different texts are referenced here. Next, this misunderstanding was compounded by an unclear understanding of the other source being cited in the article (ie. Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis - Zand), which deals, among other things, with the Pahlavi commentary that was/is contained in the Hadokht nask, the Nerangestan text and the Herbedestan text. Lastly, the first source, and the origin of this confusion, got removed from the article at some point in time, which made it unclear where this mistake originated.Kjansen86 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nels Van Patten

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. He is only mentioned in passing in the articles currently used. His father and brother are notable. Appears to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America

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

Deletion discussion: I believe this article should be deleted, because it lacks notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAdams1800 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it meets both GNG and the relevant SNG. We have significant coverage across a decent span of time and at least three reviews from major publications. Also note that this AfD appears to be malformed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 11 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews by reliable sources. (The article was in a much different state when nominated, thanks to Horse Eye's Back for making major improvements to it.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Villanueva

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

Subject is only mentioned in passing in the one source. Could find no sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ANYBIO/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is evidence that he produced a certified gold album, Tell All Your Friends. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addverb Technologies

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

The article on Addverb Technologies does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations as outlined in WP:ORG. Despite being a legitimate robotics and automation company, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources necessary to establish notability.

Most of the cited references are press releases, primary sources, or niche industry publications that fail to provide in-depth, independent analysis of the company. This contravenes Wikipedia's requirements under WP:RS. The article also demonstrates a promotional tone, focusing excessively on achievements and partnerships without balanced, independent critique, thereby breaching WP:NPOV.

Additionally, the editing history and the language used suggest potential issues of Undisclosed Paid Editing (UPE) or conflict of interest. Such concerns further undermine the neutrality and reliability of the article.

Without significant, independent, and reliable sources to establish the company's notability, the article fails to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia and should be considered for deletion.--Jaypung (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. 3, 8 and 4, 17 and duplicate references. Taabii (talk) 07:13, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Ghosh (mathematician)

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

Like most assistant professors he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Citations are too low for #C1, local awards are not enough for #C2, and editorial board membership (rather than editor-in-chief positions for a notable journal) are not enough for #C8. Publishing many works is not a notability criterion at all; it is the impact of the works that matters. My prod saying all this, and a prod2 by User:Bearian, were removed, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious promotionalism could potentially be fixed, but then we'd have a bland stub about a non-notable person. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 8

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

Article is WP:TOOSOON. Article is full of WP:CRYSTAL and speculation, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The spacecrafts that are purportedly flying this test are still being built and no details are known. This could easily be covered in List of Starship launches#Future launches until such a time that there is sigcov for this test and enough information to construct an article. RachelTensions (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 9

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

Article is WP:TOOSOON. Article is full of WP:CRYSTAL and speculation, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The spacecrafts that are purportedly flying this test are still being built and no details are known. RachelTensions (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bradbrooke

AfDs for this article:

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

Bare mentions only, as in previous AFD. — Moriwen (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two of the references clearly state personal information about him and not just bare mentions. Furthermore he represented Great Britain, England and competed at the Commonwealth games, I can't see an issue with notability because of this. ApricotFoot (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see practically all except one is a paid subscription, making it hard to verify. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ref examples, ref2 states = The high jump was won by Edward Bradbrooke of Cambridge University and the Achilles Club. he is the son of Dr Bradbrooke of Bletchley and has represented England. He cleared 6 feet. ref 9 states= A memorable Event: The athletic sports were of their usual excellence and the last event, the high jump will not be forgotten by the spectators whose rapt attention was held by a duel between Edward Bradbrooke and E Turner, of Earlstown Viaduct, both of whom were due on the morrow to start on the journey across the Atlantic to represent their country.ApricotFoot (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that WP:BEFORE was followed correctly for this AfD. Per WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, @Moriwen, please add relevant WikiProjects to the article's talk page before nominating it for deletion. This article had no WikiProjects tagged so its deletion wouldn't appear on relevant article alerts pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Article alerts. --Habst (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the provided newspaper sources quoted above. It's also worth mentioning that the subject meets WP:NATH for his 5th-place finish at the 1930 Commonwealth Games. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the extent of the coverage in the paywalled refs are similar to the bare mentions in routine recaps quoted above, then the subject is nowhere close to meeting SPORTCRIT and GNG. Also a note that the suggestion to notify interested projects after nominating an AfD is absolutely not a requirement and is in fact very rare for nominators to do, and there is also zero obligation for a nominator to make sure every relevant project has been added to an article's talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, this wasn't a case of just one or two WikiProjects being missing – the article had no projects tagged at all. There is always an obligation to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of your ability barring IAR, and I don't think they were followed in this case. --Habst (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is zero requirement for an article talk page be tagged with projects (and if there was it would be the responsibility of the article creator).
2. The section you link states it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD. It in no way obliges a nominator to notify anyone; in fact this nonexistent responsibility is equally shared by the "and others" in nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention.
3. The section you link isn't even part of BEFORE. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I think there is a misunderstanding. I never used the words "requirement" or "obligation" in my original comment, you are using those words. The full sentence of your quote says (emphasis mine), "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors." Simply adding relevant WikiProjects to an article's talk page fulfills the point in the "Notify interested projects and editors" section hence the suggestion. Part of WP:BEFORE section C prong 3 is to address issues with associated WikiProjects, which adding the tags is one way of doing. I don't think that point was followed in this case. --Habst (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing the nom of having "not followed BEFORE correctly" and stated there is "always an obligation to follow" P&Gs which you think was "not followed in this case". The items you are complaining about the nom not following do not exist anywhere in BEFORE, which isn't even a P&G. "Not having talk page project tags" is obviously not an issue with the article that would affect whether it should be nominated, hence why project tags are not mentioned until the "nominators and others sometimes want..." suggestion in AFTER. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're using very harsh words like "accuse" to characterize my statements that I never used. Whether Wikipedia procedures are followed is often subjective, and in this case I don't think relevant WikiProjects were sufficiently notified so I fixed the issue myself. Notifying WikiProjects about article issues is in WP:BEFORE C3, and AFD (which includes BEFORE and AFTER) is the policy-based way that we delete pages here via WP:Deletion policy. Adding WP banners is part of the article improvement process and there's no reason to discourage that in this case. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation that nominators notify WikiProjects. You chastised the nom about tagging projects as if not doing so was a deviation from our P&Gs when it is not even an expectation in the non-P&G BEFORE. The suggestion to consider whether the article can be improved through asking projects about specific issues is not an instruction that one should do so, and, given that tagging projects is only mentioned in a mild recommendation for any interested editors AFTER the AfD goes live, doesn't even encompass that action. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I didn't use the word "obligation" because it's a funny word in that we're all volunteers here so the best we can do is try our best. I greatly respect your work as well as the nominator's; was simply saying that notifying relevant parties about an AfD that could be contentious is a positive thing to do that should be encouraged, and it wasn't done in this case. --Habst (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is always an obligation to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of your ability barring IAR, and I don't think they were followed in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use the word "obligation" in my original comment at Special:Diff/1269077727. The one you're quoting was in response to you using that word. Like I said, it's a funny word to use for sure other than in a context of saying we should try our best, which is what I was communicating there. --Habst (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Smith

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Not clear that the incident itself has longterm significance.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Louzada

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable banker. Sources are mostly brief (WP:TRIVIALMENTION/WP:INTERVIEW) quotes in news outlets ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]). There are also some sources that don't mention him at all ([12], [13], [14], [15]) and a pay-to-play WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview. Nothing in WP:BEFORE search indicates notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Diamond (wrestler born 1935)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, there's no source (even one) that provides significant coverage to help establish notability. WP:GNG is also not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ([16][17]) Could be more coverage out there in wrestling magazines. I had to search using his real name (Paul Lehman) instead of his ring name because the results were confused with the other wrestler named Paul Diamond. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Ostrow

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

Not sufficient on WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United States of America. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Royiswariii Talk! 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete I was able to find this Forbes article and this Los Angeles Times article, but other than that doesn't really meet WP:GNG. The article is also POV in nature. TNM101 (chat) 16:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, SIMBAD show six references which are all catalogues and do not provide significant coverage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting Extinction

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

I see no evidence this passes WP:NORG. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Primary Criteria" section in WP:NORG states "presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Multiple references on the page pass this criteria (BBC Video, Guardian, The Sunday Times). Other reputable sources not mentioned on the Rewriting Extinction page (ITV, The Independent) have featured Rewriting Earth (and formerly Rewriting Extinction) and their campaigns.

In the Guardian article and BBC video, Rewriting Extinction is the subject of the piece.

As per the Guardian: "Rewriting extinction: Ricky Gervais joins celebrities creating comics to save species", "Ricky Gervais is the latest celebrity to join an ambitious year-long storytelling campaign called Rewriting Extinction with the launch of a comic called Bullfight." The remainder of the article is a feature on Rewriting Extinction, in the form of an interview with its founder, Paul Goodenough. PersonDoingSomeEditing (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. A google search brought only blogs or websites that talk about the comics they have published. TNM101 (chat) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Win Wenger

AfDs for this article:

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

A fairly promotional biography for a consultant/PhD whose work is almost exclusively self-published. ("Psychegenics Press" appears to have published only works by Wenger; "Project Renaissance" is described as Wenger's own organization.) I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:NACADEMIC; his work does not appear to be very widely cited, and he did not appear to hold any qualifying academic appointment. I thought there might be a pass on WP:NAUTHOR for his one book published by a mainstream publisher, The Einstein Factor, but I could not find any full-length published reviews, including searches in JSTOR, Ebsco and ProQuest. And for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent sources. The sources are limited to: his own writing, a WP:USERGENERATED obituary, an obit from an organization he was affiliated with, his official bios, or places to buy his books online and WP:SPS blog posts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Maryland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

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

Singular instance of an award, should merge to the main article's page, Collier Trophy Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Eagle 20

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

Cannot find reliable sources for this boat. Possible redirect to List of multihulls to prevent deletion, but cannot find maker or any information about this craft except in sales adverts. Nayyn (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinta Kellas

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

Lack of independent notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG. Unsourced since its creation in 2005 and still nothing out there to prove that it is notable. Mekomo (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Social media, yelp ratings, gov't contracts awarded... That's the extent of sourcing I find. I don't see notability for this company Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiber

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

The article fails WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Italy. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose, Flash Fiber and FiberCop are two separate companies, and also meet the eligibility requirements. InterComMan (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, article reliance on primary sources like the company website and promotional materials are failing to establish sufficient notability or societal impact. Nxcrypto Message 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEI Club

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

Wholly promotional, failing neutrality and notability standards. Fails WP:ORG. Dubious sources with no editorial oversight and promotional tone. For example, the GQ article says, "the company offers something many have never considered: a coaching system that refines their approach to dating and relationships." The Businessworld article claims, "SEI Club's success is solely because of its exhaustive screening process and high knockback rate." Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shold the press only be negative? why does positive content equate a lack of notability? Are things in this world never "good"? In some cases the "truth" might in fact be positive. 216.15.110.195 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What negative press are you seeing? It's all positive, or neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Yahoo article is fine, GQ doesn't have a listed author... I found this [18], contributor piece but it was "reviewed by editorial staff" so I suppose it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shar Pei Lab

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

I do not believe this crossbreed is notable; it is only recognised by one organisation (which is not a major kennel club) and has practically no coverage in reliable sources. I previously PROD'ed this, but that was removed so I'm taking it here. CoconutOctopus talk 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. CoconutOctopus talk 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicola (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, best addressed with hatnote. Gjs238 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural Close‎. I Draftified the article earlier prior to nomination, now it is already a redirect to a draft page (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Reid

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

This author fails WP:GNG due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Junbeesh (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me what would constitute a reliable source in this instance. Would traditional publisher's websites be ok? Jonathan Emmett (talk) 11:58, 16 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.

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is of a non-notable branch of the Jemaah Islamiya. WP:BEFORE search founds nothing that discusses the subject in depth and not merely mention. The only source does not even discuss the group in depth but of that of its leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Maybe a merge with the article about the leader would suffice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but not strongly opposed to a merge. I basically agree with the consensus of the last AfD for this article, where all participants broadly agreed on a weak keep and felt that a merge with Noordin Mohammad Top wasn't a terrible option but that it might not be ideal given that the group continued to exist after his death. That AfD also surfaced quite a few useful sources that indicate some notability (the best probably being [19] [20] [21]), although unfortunately a couple of the other links are now dead or paywalled. In addition to the sources from the last AfD, these books [22] [23] [24] [25] provide some discussion of the group, and a search of "Al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago" on Google Scholar turns up a number of non-trivial mentions from as recently as 2022. To be fair, I'm not able to find anything that goes into a great deal of depth, but I'm inclined to say it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Given that the group existed after he died I agree with the above that it is not a great merge target. We can have a serviceable article on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaNaDr

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article was deleted at AFD a year ago. The present article was created a few months ago, covering recent action against the firm by the Singapore Ministry of Health. Searches find this Straits Times item concerning other providers' reactions to that situations (and perhaps Healthcare_in_Singapore#Private_healthcare should be extended to cover telehealth). However WP:CORP indicates that regulatory actions and their coverage are not in themselves indicative of notability of a particular firm, so it seems appropriate to bring this to AFD as it doesn't seem there is enough in-depth coverage to overturn the previous deletion consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 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 Singapore. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Agree with the nominator. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mekomo (talk) 14:20, 16 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.

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. This whole thing just discouraged me from further involvement in being a wikipedia editor altogether. Kind of has me feeling like I'm offending people without meaning to, so forgive me for not seeing your comment. And thank you for being willing to see more about this. So with case law, they're not actually lawsuits. What happens is that when lawsuits are filed in district courts, and somebody gets a ruling they don't like, they appeal to the circuit courts. If the circuit court issues an opinion on the case, and that opinion gets published, it becomes a law, and it is binding. Roe v. Wade started out as a lawsuit, Brady was a lawsuit, Gideon was a lawsuit, but those cases became law after either a circuit court or the Supreme Court published a written opinion to resolve it. I thought that the fact that it was a law made it noteworthy enough. If I didn't include the relevant citations in the article, that's my fault, but here are a few for you to consider. The Human Rights Defense Center issues a publication called Prison Legal News that circulates information about new case law that promotes human rights. In its 26th Edition, they touched on Dimanche v. Brown: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/publications/volume-1-detention-and-corrections-caselaw-catalog-26th-ed-2016/. They spoke about the First Amendment and the use of chemical agents in retaliation against inmates. The citations used in the article demonstrate how prominent organizations cited Dimanche v. Brown to protect their interests, from the ACLU, to the Institute for Justice, Dimanche v. Brown is helpful in arguing what is precedential when it comes to protecting human rights. Columbia University did a piece on improvements to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that can be found here: https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2021/02/21.-Chapter-14.pdf. They state:

"Suppose you follow the grievance rules, but get a grievance decision rejecting your grievance and claiming wrongly that you didn’t follow the rules. Courts have generally been willing to examine incarcerated people’s compliance with the rules independently rather than being bound by what grievance officials say about it."

Here, they cited to Dimanche v. Brown to encourage students and litigants that courts look at the totality of the circumstances instead of taking grievance officials at their word. Additionally, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, a partner of the Department of Justice, published its monthly law journal on retaliation case law, found here: https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailretaliation.html. Dimanche v. Brown was, again, listed as a case where the courts opt to not take prison officials at their word when grievance mechanisms are in question. These are just publications who find helpful laws that can help their readers, but where you will find the true value in the law is here: https://casetext.com/case/dimanche-v-brown-2/how-cited?citingPage=1&sort=relevance. It is primarily for use by attorneys, but as you can see, the law was cited 178 times by courts in the United States as a foundational point to settle law, and its 18 pages of new laws being set with Dimanche v. Brown giving the courts guidance. As you can see, in 2023 the 11th Circuit published another law, Sims v. FDOC (https://casetext.com/case/sims-v-secy-fla-dept-of-corr-1?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=), and the entire section 4 of that law was founded on Dimanche. v. Brown. Keep in mind, Dimanche v. Brown became law 10 years ago, and it was used as a founding point of reason to resolve an entirely new 11th Circuit opinion in 2023. It is a very important case to people who litigate prison civil rights cases. Finally, in its articles on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, & Government and Administrative Law, Justia published a synopsis on Dimanche v. Brown: https://us11thcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2015/04/18/dimanche-v-brown/. It has its place in civil rights, human rights and prisoner rights litigation, and many litigants rely on it to get justice in their cases because a lot of inmates face retaliation for filing inmate grievances, and when they see that somebody prevailed under the same circumstances, they tell the courts that the 11th Circuit has already recognized how bad the retaliation is in the prisons. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to compile all the sources. I am sorry for the late response; The notification system didn't seem have worked for some reason. My knowledge in law is very limited, so I can't judge how important the case is. Still, many legal publications have included the case in their, I am guessing, list of precedences, so I would definitely support a section in the Moe Dimanche article. However, most of the above sources are a simple synopsis of case, which one could get simply by reading the court filings. There are not much in terms of secondary analysis in the cited sources. Wikipedia is not a mere compendium of legal cases, so I'd support a merge to its parent article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think ordinarily we might agree on !delete for this kind of thing, on the basis of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and a lack of secondary sources. We are not a legal dictionary. On the other hand.. it feels like laws which affect people are a special case, and there could be a lot of things to assess and !delete on this precedence. There are sources, in particular I think this one shows that the case has been cited many times in other cases. I don't know how to parse this stuff, I'm hoping others with better knowledge and legal nouce can give us direction. JMWt (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am open to changing my vote with the opinion of a legal expert, but I believe this should be kept. The case has been cited 178 times in 10 years. The article does have some issues with original research and puffery, but I believe the article can be improved with someone knowledgeable of law who is not related to the subject. Of possible relevance, I separately voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche in part on the basis that the plaintiff is not notable, but the case is notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Smith (umpire)

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail since the only source is the CricInfo database and a passing mention on the Cricket Ireland website. This guy is literally an umpire.

DePROD'd by St. Anselm with the comment "international umpires - yes, even umpires - are generally notable", however, participation-based notability was deprecated by WP:NSPORTS2022. Nobody is notable simply because of where they've played or officiated. If this person were notable in the world of cricket, or in Ireland, you would expect significant coverage of them, and that doesn't appear to exist. FOARP (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 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.

Withdrawn based on a more detailed search of Wisden - searching without quotation marks brings up his obituary, and whilst it's very marginal for SIGCOV it's worth giving a chance. ‎. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Bird

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail since the only coverage is in databases, a passing-mention in an auto-biography ("I remember three first-rate wicket-keepers: Wilfred Bird and A.C.P. Arnold, both killed in the war, and R.S.M. White."), and a brief mention in a listicle on a non-RS site. Since this young man was sadly cut down in his prime during WW1 it is unlikely that anything more would be found.

DeProd'd by St. Anselm on the grounds of "significant coverage in Wisden". However, a search of the Wisden Almanac using this tool brings up only one hit, an unrelated story about a bird being killed by a fast-bowler dated 1937. Even accounting for poor OCR, it seems likely that any coverage here will anyway be along the lines of passing mentions in match reports, if that. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and United Kingdom. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 16 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.

2008 Texas vs. Oklahoma football game

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NSPORTSEVENT, individual games must be extraordinary or have a lasting impact on the sport to be notable. The fourth bullet found in the guideline provides the best analog for this article; I quote here A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g., The Malice at the Palace, 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match). Certainly this match doesn't come close to the examples given.

Source analysis is as follows:

1) routine scores

2) routine match coverage

3) sports column covering the team rivalry, which, as it happens, isn't notable per WP:NRIVALRY. In any case, no mention of the match itself.

4) routine polls; no mention

5) see 2)

6) less than passing mention in a list. As it happens, the source isn't the NYTimes, as listed, but a site dedicated to covering the Texas Longhorns.

7) No mention

8) This is the most substantial of the lot, having several paragraphs of summary in a list by an independent? sports site. But one source does not substantial coverage make.

9) Passing mention

10) Routine coverage

11) Passing mention

And per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SBST, passing mentions and routine coverage don't count towards notability.

Online searches turn up routine coverage, except for [26], which I can't access due to the paywall but seems to be routine sports coverage nonetheless, and [27], which, as a summary used to gin up hype for the next game in the rivalry, is also routine and thus not extraordinary.

Please note that there has been a previous AfD on the article subject. The main difference from then is that we now have WP:NSPORTSEVENT. It seems to me that long-standing consensus tilts against dedicated match coverage, as in this article. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 08:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the thorough nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Oklahoma, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROTM rivalry game. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red River Rivalry#2004–2009. That's a lot of detail about a very routine game. Per nom, the sources don't establish that this was a particularly significant game beyond that both teams had done well that year and it was reasonably high scoring. It's also already covered at 2008 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Texas (Red River Rivalry), 2008 Texas Longhorns football team#Oklahoma, 2008 Texas Longhorns football team#45–35 campaign and BCS controversy, and 2008 Big 12 Conference football season#Texas–Oklahoma. Reywas92^Talk 14:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Royiswariii Talk! 16:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Routine coverage of a WP:MILL topic. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Flix

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

Fails WP:Notability apparently has created 3 movies but there is no coverage and no mention of those on web except for imdb, the claims have no citations to be verified as well Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try to improve the article first. If one can't find sources talking about it via google that could be because the sites talking about it are not indexed/crawled. It could also be a problem with Google's algorithm, because it is returning results for PrideFLIX (a streaming website) and a PrideFlix, a catalogue of LGBTQ movies.

I am against deletion for now. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For it to be included as a live article, not only should this have "sites talking about it" but reliable at that too, it can surely be improved if you are willing to find reliable sources to fix the article while the discussion is in progress. Good luck @TurboSuperA+. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put a notice on the article creator's talk page that the article is up for deletion? Perhaps put a notice on WT:LGBTQ+ as well. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ commenting that if i put a notice on the article creator’s talk page without checking it, is highly irrelevant to this discussion and thank you for suggesting me to add this to LGBTQ+ related discussions as well. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question, not an attempt to add to the discussion, but not checking the creator's user page was my mistake. I only checked it after I had posted my comment. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to be covered in any source other than those belonging to it or a niche. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 08:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a direct to video outfit, but it's gone now. I don't see notability for the three films, with no reviews or much of anything listed...The company isn't notable, due to the lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Abela

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this Maltese footballer to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unknown hobby player. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hobby player? What do you mean? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jenkins

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

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis School, Greater Noida West

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No such sources found to qualify GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that draftifying the article would be optimal. If proof can be found that this school actually does operate worldwide and enrolls thousands of students then this is likely a notable subject. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab Satpati

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

The subject does not pass WP:ACADEMICS. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok delete it. I am leaving wikipedia btw. This is really depressing. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypothetical Painter Pls read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Taabii (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor who doesn't pass WP:NPROF. 268 total citations and an h-index of 9 is a long way off meeting C1, and I wasn't able to find any indication of major awards, editor positions, memberships etc. that could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. MCE89 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF and GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting PROF, appears to not be a highly-cited individual. Career is routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors do not usually meet our standards for academic notability (the rare exceptions are often those with major international awards showing that they're already a star and their academic rank hasn't caught up). I see no evidence that this one is any exception. Citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Fresh

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted as promo in 2020, recreated by a 57-edits account in 2022. Fails WP:NCORP.

[28] Fails WP:ORGIND, this source's entire content is the CEO talking about her own company.
[29] Fails ORGIND, most of the article is a regurgitation of a press release by a company that partnered with Teddy Fresh
[30] Clearly a promotional ad, complete with price tags for the products and an unreasonably large collection of pictures of them
[31] WP:ORGTRIV, routine announcement of products, the original commentary on the company is a negligibly small part of the article
[32] Routine announcement, looks like a press release
[33] This is just an advertisement, complete with price tags and the pictures of the products.
[34] Barely passes WP:ORGDEPTH, since a great part of this article is about the CEO talking about her own company
[35] Another trivial announcement of products. The parts of this article that aren't the CEO talking about her own company are simple descriptions of the company's latest released products. There's not enough original, in-depth commentary on the company. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Heart ^(talk) 06:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: the Uproxx sources are fine, we have some non-primary coverage of the brand/company. Not very much, but I think it's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Uproxx source states that "Disclaimer: Uproxx may receive payment to direct readers to certain retail vendors who are offering these products for purchase." Looks unreliable to me. Badbluebus (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do about the reliability of their content. It's about the ads and any related affiliate links, they are usually legally required to state this transparency. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the Uproxx references would not be reliable for notability as they are written by contributors so I would say they are similar to WP:FORBESCON. However, this reference in WWD doesn't just "barely pass." Yes, it has a lot of quotes but it goes in-depth about the company with information written by the staff writer. I also think this one in the Business Insider was missed in the WP:BEFORE. Not only does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH, look at the bio of the writer (complete opposite of the Uproxx writer). --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There isn't much, but there is some coverage. WP:SIGCOV says there's no set number, but we're right on the edge here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources provided by Badbluebus and the explanation of CNMall4. Gedaali (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It makes no sense to argue for Keep based on User:Badbluebus's review of sources as they were very critical of the sources present. I don't see editors arguing Keep rebut most of their evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WWD and Insider sources are enough to provide WP:SIGCOV (barely, but if we're being fair, the sources are there). They also meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political houseparty

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

One of a set of unsourced stubs explaining political things that need no explanation. This could likely be expanded by padding, but as it is I'm dubious anyone even uses this name. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a handful of sources that mention this being a thing, but I couldn't find anything to suggest it merits an article. No indication that this is a widespread or widely covered practice. MCE89 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources whatsoever. Created in 2006, and tagged as unsourced since December 2009. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Sigh. Am I really that old? I'm not sure why Coffee klatch and Retail campaign were both deleted, because either would be a good redirect. This subject was an important political process, but isn't well-documented in the Internet age. It was well documented in books in the 19th and 20th centuries. It still happens in the 21st century, but is nowadays treated as weird by Gen Z or only for advocating issues. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue here isn't that there isn't such a thing; it's that these articles pull various elements of campaigning into their own little boxes out of context. Yes, of course you're going to find people mentioning doing these sorts of things. But they are just one way of getting groups of like-minded people together to generate enthusiasm for a candidate. Again, prove me wrong by making a substantial article. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the page is poorly sourced and written, but the concept is important and notable, as one can verify by checking sources in Google books or scholar. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can editors arguing to Keep list some sources that can improve this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This article is unsourced, and that definitely needs fixing. However, it discusses what seems to be an important concept, so if there's hope that sources can be found that meet WP:GNG, I think we should give it a chance.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I followed the !voter above's advice and googled it. All I found were blogs, SEO sites, Wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. If the purpose is to define this term, within the broader context of house parties, it fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. If its purpose is to show this is a unique concept with substantial discussion, it fails WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has been unsourced for nearly 19 years.Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internal enemy

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column. I don’t see how this article could ever go beyond a definition sub unless it get overloaded with random examples. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding delete/merge with Fifth Column as suggested by RakdosWitch. Sinclairian (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Can't be Merged to Fifth Column as this page is a redirect, not an article. Please check links before you suggest a page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column for reasons provided by RakdosWitch. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pennington (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Heart ^(talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaun Cassidy#Personal life perhaps? Procyon117 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hila Klein

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

I don't see enough reliable sources that talk about Klein in depth. The few sources in this article that are not gossipy or clearly unreliable are either centered on the youtube channels she co-hosted with her husband (H3 Podcast, H3H3productions) or the fashion company she founded (Teddy Fresh). Although the podcasts and the company could be notable, she is not. It is possible that this page could be redirected to any of those articles. My source eval is the following:

[36] Fails WP:INDEPENDENT and SIGCOV, most of this article is Klein talking about her own company, there's not enough independent coverage of Klein herself
[37] Arguably reliable, but the source is more about Teddy Fresh than Hila Klein. It doesn't support the need for an article about her separate from Teddy Fresh.
[38] WP:SPORTSKEEDA
[39] Routine WP:DEXERTO article that doesn't discuss Klein in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, Internet, Israel, United States of America, and California. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could a combined Ethan and Hila Klein article be feasible? Right now it's just a redirect to h3h3Productions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Further to Darth Stabro's observation, Ethan and Hila Klein and their two companies exhibit significant overlap and collectively satisfy the GNG. With ease. A merge of the four related topics would resolve the excessive fragmentation. Contrary to what was claimed, this nomination evaluates the references in the article rather than the sources, which conflicts with the NEXIST principle. This isn't critical, as an entirely new merge procedure is the best way forward. Still worth keeping in mind for future nominations. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively no objection to discuss a merger here either. I assume we can't unless the debate is broadened early on and in consensus. Hence the procedural keep. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Merge, please identify an existing target article. I also don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep which typically is invoked with an inadequate or bad faith nomination and that is not the case here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, the merge target is right there: Ethan and Hila Klein! Hence the reference to Darth Stabro. I explicitly have built on his excellent input. Please provide a reference for what you describe as "typical". Also please explain why an opinion can't be atypical. "Typical" includes by definition space for exemptions. Every case is different. I clearly say alongside no objection to discuss a merger here either. In general, when relisting an article, it's best not to concentrate too much on one participant or another in relisting messages or the closure of AfDs because they will feel singled out. Unless you have positive things to say. Praise is hardly ever a problem. gidonb (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thus far there is a consensus among all respondents to merge Hila Klein and three other articles, or at the very least one, into Ethan and Hila Klein. Let's not sidetrack the debate from the structural elements of this page. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easher Austin

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

This subject is not eligible for an entry into Wikipedia as the references in the article are all primary and there is nothing elsewhere that can be added to the article to demonstrate their notability. The creator is the subject of the article himself. This is a significant COI. Centuristic (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Centuristic (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources pop up for this guy; clearly self-advertising. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Also not notable for youtube stuff, very low viewcount, 633 subs. Polygnotus (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty bad case of self-promotion. YouTube channel not notable. Procyon117 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

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

No sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 04:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agreed. I'm not sure how this article was moved out of draftspace to begin with. I don't view it as article-worthy, not without some extra sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hungarian State Railways (MÁV). It's the current form of that company after merging with Volánbusz. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. was formerly known as MÁV-START, which operated under this name from 2006 to 2024 before being renamed. You can find sources from before 2024 by searching for MÁV-START. – balint36 ^{passenger complaints} 23:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tengku Baharuddin

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

I do not see that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cumbria

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

Only links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Heart ^(talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its outdated as there are now only 2 districts. If kept I will update. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi

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

Non-notable American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR through roles in Doom Patrol (TV series), Soap Girl, Only the Brave (2006 film), The Nana Project and various Lifetime productions (see page, with a couple of reviews mentioning her cited), at least. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (coverage mentioning her roles include, almost at random https://deadline.com/2021/04/doom-patrol-hbo-max-five-recur-season-3-1234742555/ ; https://collider.com/doom-patrol-season-3-cast-sisterhood-of-dada/ https://www.abookof.us/talent-index/gina-hiraizumi https://www.thewrap.com/vivica-a-fox-new-the-wrong-movies-lmn-lifetime-movie-network/ (only mentioned twice but to verify the roles) https://2paragraphs.com/2020/03/actress-gina-hiraizumi-flaunts-natural-boob-job-in-lacy-bra/ (really not great but indicates 2 other noted roles in popular series) etc ; might also been considered a prolific actress thus meeting WP:NACTOR's second criterion (https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/gina-hiraizumi/credits/3000481836/)[reply]
my signed comment above was expanded by myself (see below) -Mushy Yank. 07:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign and then expanded my comment in the same block, but all right, I'll sign again at the bottom.-Mushy Yank. 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InDevR

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

This is a seemingly non-notable biotech company. None of their products appear to have widespread usage. There is almost no independent coverage of the company. Searching for them on Google only has five pages of results, almost all of which originate from the company. Additionally, there are articles for some of their products: AmpliPHOX, FluChip, and Virus counter (though Virus counter is currently under a different company). Searching for these products on PubMed only yields primary sources, most of which seem to have been done by InDevR or in collaboration with people at InDevR. Furthermore, these four articles all appear to have been created and primarily written by people who work at InDevR as at least three of the editors share their username with current and past workers there and their only activity on Wikipedia was editing these articles. Velayinosu (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Science. Velayinosu (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated in the nomination of InDevR for deletion:

AmpliPHOX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FluChip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virus counter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Velayinosu (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team

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

College volleyball season with no indication of notability. The sources are all either trivial mentions, at least 1.5 years old, or don't mention the team at all. An online search doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe the team itself warrants an article but even that is not clearly established. I struggle to come up with a scenario where a college sports team's single season warrants a dedicated article. This season does not come close to notability. The content is largely promotional and the handful of references are weak and often quite old. An extreme example is the list of TV announcers which includes as a reference for one of the announcers an article from 2007. An 18 year old article that doesn't mention Menlo Oaks is neither reliable nor relevant to this team's 2025 season.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharin Yamano

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

This is the pen name of an individual who is known for writing an anti-Korean manga series. While the series is absolutely notable in itself (and its article is quite interesting), that doesn't warrant an extra article about its anonymous author who is only known for creating that specific work. Anonymous 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Anime and manga, Japan, and Korea. Anonymous 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manga Kenkanryu - a plausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manga Kenkanryu per nom. To be honest, I was considering doing this myself about a month ago when I rewrote the Manga Kenkanryu article, but I didn't feel like it at the time. Link20XX (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Dee

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

I am unable to find any in-depth coverage of this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

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

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

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

1957 Philippine Air Lines DHC-3 Otter crash

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

This aviation incident does not appear to meet WP:NEVENT / WP:GNG. I find no evidence of secondary coverage at the time (although that is perhaps no surprise given the time that has passed; if you find them please ping me), and the sources in the article are limited the WP:USERGENERATED Flight Safety Foundation wiki and a WP:SPS site based on the wiki, plus a couple WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. I also see no evidence of long-term/lasting effects that would satisfy WP:LASTING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources I find are mentions, unreliable, or advertorials. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Greece. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Habermann

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

Per question raised by User:Maineartists at Wikipedia:Help_desk#copyvio. Page was created in 2005 as a verbatim copy of the musician's own webpage at the time. See the 2004 archive of the musician's website https://web.archive.org/web/20040204000620/http://www.michaelhabermann.com/ and the initial 2005 version of our article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Habermann&oldid=24277064 There is no copyright mention on the archived musician's website so we have to assume it was copyrighted. His current page, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/ is copyrighted 2001, and the ABOUT MICHAEL HABERMANN subpage, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/about/_index.html is unchanged from the version we copied in 2005. There are only minor differences between the current article and the initial 2005 version, and the cited sources are simple bio entries, so in my opinion this is a WP:TNT situation. The entire article should be deleted as a copyvio, and recreated with independent sources if warranted. Meters (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, Canada, Mexico, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even after all these years, CopyVio still reports 79.3% similarity to the subject's web site.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Maineartists (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

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

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Holman

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and lacks proper reliable sourcing OhNoKaren (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Television, Health and fitness, Arizona, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Du Cane

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only source is a broken link OhNoKaren (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be notable at all. Also lacks any sources. Perfecnot (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Martial arts, Africa, England, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignis Asset Management

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

Created and worked on by a single purpose editor. A search for sources found routine coverage, mainly covering how this company was acquired by another (non notable company). Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, England, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything still relevant to the Standard Life article.^[1] Does not meet standalone article criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsbreak (magazine)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and lacks proper sourcing. Could be a section on parent company's page but does not warrants its own page OhNoKaren (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Award winning publication. Please explain this nomination. pburka (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rappler couldn't find any sources that are WP:SECONDARYSOURCE to the subject. The keep vote above is not policy related. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rappler. Rappler § Newsbreak also exists, so I guess a merge may be suitable if there are contents from this article that can be merged. But for now, I'm leaning to a redirect. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per pburka, award winning publication. The reference links are poorly done, which makes it not obvious that third party newspapers also write about the magazine, but they do, I'll fix some; however the awards would make it a keep anyway. User:Miminity is incorrect, awards absolutely do make a news site notable, that's called WP:WEBCRIT. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

Bonner, Raymond (25 July 2005). "Editors Tackle Taboos With Girlish Glee". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 16 January 2025. Long, indepth article from the foremost newspaper in the US.
Cruz, Carmela (October 12, 2009). "Muckraking in Manila". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 16 January 2025. Not completely devoted to the magazine, but more than a casual mention. Among the lines: "For the next several years, Newsbreak gained a reputation for its dogged investigative reporting and lively attacks on the malfeasance of the Philippines’ holy trinity: politics, the military, and the Catholic Church."
Goodno, James B. (November 2, 2009). "Staying Alive in Mindanao". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 16 January 2025. About a specific issue of the magazine.

Secondary sources, gentle editors. --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, thanks. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Books Be Books per SNOW, but I can't really do that here given the "redirect" votes. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ultimately seems fine, notability seems at the very least established. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APS Payroll

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article was created by @Rachelaps, who claims to be an employee for APS Payroll on their user page. Perfecnot (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this policy. We are in the process of engaging with a third-party vendor to manage our content. I will update this conversation once we have secured a third-party vendor to update our page. Thank you. Rachelaps (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If “third-party vendor” is a corporate euphemism for “random PR firm that we throw money at to edit our Wikipedia page for us”, please be aware that we have strict guidelines for editing in the presence of a conflict of interest. You should familiarize yourself with WP: COI. You should also be aware that paid editing outside of these guidelines is heavily looked down upon by the community and may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to a block from editing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG. Could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Kedar

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

Per the discussion on WP:FTN, there is an inherent issue here. While the claim to notability is of him as an author and autistic advocate, all of what he have from him is through the thoroughly discredited practice of facilitated communication - which basically means that none of this is actually him. While this would not be disqualifying if we had sources to address this, none of the sources do. It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator here. The article is not about/endorsing facilitated communication or any fringe theory. The article is a biographical article and is backed by the sources provided. Also, for what it's worth, the article, as backed by sources, suggests the individual does not use facilitated communication, but rather types on a tablet computer. I don't think there's any violation of WP:FRINGE here. I see no reason not to keep. —siro χ o 01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article itself is not about facilitated communication, it is remarkable that no source I can find has commented on whether or not facilitated communication is still being used by the person in question. This is especially concerning considering the video evidence that is out there that Ido Kedar does not offer tablet communication independent of those with whom he has had an acknowledged FC/RPM relationship.

We are cautioned to look for WP:FRIND sources whenever questions that relate to WP:FRINGEBLP come up. And, like it or lump it, there is a significant part of this story (even including that the story exists at all) which is being driven by a fringe theory. I would like nothing more than for a third-party WP:FRIND source to appear that would evaluate and state with clarity what the situation is. Do we have a situation here where FC/RPM was used and then Ido Kedar transitioned away (if so, this would be the first documented case of this that I think would have ever been seen)? Or do we have a case where FC/RPM is still going on making a lot of this questionable.

This is a WP:BLP, so we are tied by Wikipedia's rules to follow what reliable sources say about the subject. But given the problems of FC/RPM, it seems to me that we may be in a situation where literally no reliable sources have been written on this person. This includes sources from locations that would otherwise be considered reliable. When it comes for WP:FRINGE claims, we have seen some of the best publishing outlets fall flat on their faces and end up WP:SENSATION instead of reliability. Obviously, that is a huge risk here too.

Getting a source which clearly indicates whether FC/RPM is still being used by Ido Kevar would be great. But I have found none which do so.

jps (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Disability, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per coverage significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, NBC Los Angles, CBC, and others. Moral panic about the possibility of the dreaded WP:FRINGE!!! is not a criterion for deletion (good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!??). If there is relevant, reliable, BLP-compliant coverage poo-pooing this man and his works, by all means cite it as well. But until then, there appears to be enough secondary, independent, reliable coverage of the subject to warrant a brief, respectable biographical article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a guy manages to convince some news outlets that he has psychic powers, or that he was an alien, and they cover his psychic powers with limited credulity, and there is no source debunking said psychic powers with respect to the individual, we would be forced to have an article that says in wiki voice that a man can do things that are impossible, because we have no source that says otherwise with respect to this individual. This is why an article that violates WP:FRINGE is sometimes a problem worthy of deletion - if it can be fixed, then yes, if not, no.

I say this in jest but I would honestly bet if I scraped mid twentieth century newspapers enough I could probably find something like that. Even further, this is worse, because every single word and everything about him is potentially suspect because if he uses FC he didn't even say it! This is therefore not an actual article on him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!?? I am amazed that this argument is being made. Our first commitment before anything else should be to present the best information according to the best sources. If we cannot verify even the most basic of facts about a person (such as whether they are communicating what some claim they are communicating or not) because literally every word attributed fails verification as being said by them, then it is highly irresponsible of Wikipedia to WP:ASSERT anything about the person beyond such points as "this person exists". This is a biography which is based almost entirely on works that are not independently verified. To be clear, yes, there is obvious and considerable doubt that the journalists at The LA Times, NBC Los Angeles, and the CBC actually verified that they were communicating with Ido Kedar and not his handlers. This kind of "public interest story" rarely gets the attention necessary even in erstwhile reliable outlets (we see this again and again with fringe-adjacent subjects). How do we write an article on a topic when we cannot even verify the most basic facts about the topic? jps (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An inspiring story, but there is too much doubt about the reliabilty of the sources: WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If this is someone trained by the founder of the Rapid prompting method Soma Mukhopadhyay and is now an independent communicator, then he is the first one ever and the main stream news should be beating down his door with coverage of this amazing miracle. Since that has not happened we know that this is just another story from the FC community offered up with no proof of independence. We must treat this as we would any other claim of a miracle with no evidence such as someone who is dead communicating with a medium and we are supposed to believe them because they say so. We do not need to have a R/S to disprove mediumship. I would be fine with keeping this article if we were to give the authorship to the person who is facilitating Kedar. As Animalparty states, there is R/S but the authorship is not Kedar. Sgerbic (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff. That does not make him notable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The sourcing indicates that he is notable, and gives us something to write about him, and that is all we need. What we write doesn't actually have to be "true", it just has to reflect what our sources said about him. Even if his words are not his own, and "someone grabbed his fingers", he would still be notable, because sources have chosen to report - that's core Wikipedia policy (in other words, we verify that reliable sources said something, not that they got it right). If there are documented doubts about his communication, they can go in the article (and if not, not). Elemimele (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we write doesn't actually have to be "true". !!! WP:TRUTHMATTERS. jps (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG for a BLP with WP:SIGCOV. As per our policies and guidelines, we simply document all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We don't delete articles because you are unable to find any sources to discredit a topic. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no proof the person as discussed in the article does not actually exist that is, quite different. If there was the same amount of coverage about a medium talking with an alleged person from the afterlife we would have to give the same amount of coverage if the news do? Absurd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't' provided any reliable sources that explicitly state "that none of this is actually him"; and we don't delete articles because "none of the sources do". If you want to challenge any of the sources used in the article based on the argument that they don't say what you want them to say, then please go ahead and do that, otherwise this living person easily passes our criteria for a stand-alone article. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway The reliable sources say he uses or used facilitated communication, which no one has ever moved on from and is basically a ouija board when it comes to the process and accuracy of stuff coming from him. Unless all these sources are wrong and he never used FC, nothing about this person is actually from him. Again, see medium example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 16 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. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let Books Be Books

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A- stop removing the AfD tag, twice now. B- which of the six RS in the article that talk about this does the nominator feel isn't talking about this subject? Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is silly, the first TWO sources are directly about this subject, in some of the most RS we have for use in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the nominator's username and limited history, I'm having trouble assuming good faith. pburka (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be honestly fairly notable, properly and well-sourced. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone and their brother. Well sourced short article. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 16 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Germany–Guyana relations

AfDs for this article:

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

4 of the 5 sources are primary (government websites), the remaing source mentions Guyana in 1 line. All of the interaction seems to be in multilateral not bilateral contexts. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and South America. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 16 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.

^ "Standard Life Investments completes purchase of Ignis". BBC News. 2014-07-01. Retrieved 2025-01-16.

[c740-1] "Standard Life Investments completes purchase of Ignis". BBC News. 2014-07-01. Retrieved 2025-01-16.

[1]