Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 14	February 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Battles of Ceraja and Sllatina

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

Nothing to state that this meets notability. Both references used aren't RS. ballikombetar.info is a website dedicated to the Balli Kombetar, a Nazi collaborationist movement during WWII and balkanacedmia.com seems to be a blog. Griboski (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Wasit

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

Ditto as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Siege of Samarkhel. Full of LLM generated rubbish [1] with no descriptive mentions of the event (see "The Capture" section). – Garuda ^Talk! 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Pakistan, Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and India. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax. It doesn't even agree with the quotations from its own sources. Historical records such as al-Tabari's history (translated by Bosworth, SUNY Press, 1991) record that Ujayf ibn Anbasa defeated the Zutts in 834, not that the Zutts captured things in 834. Uncle G (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Siege of Samarkhel

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

Unsalvageable article, which is totally LLM'd [2] with one line of passing mentions: The Mujahideen managed to seize Samarkhel village east of Jalalabad. Topic is scarcely notable, WP:TNT applies anyways. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and United States of America. – Garuda ^Talk! 23:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 00:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a hoax. I started with the Al Qaeda in Its Own Words source. No mention of Samarkhel on page 45 at all. Other stuff entirely fails to check out, too. Stenersen 2017, p. 22 isn't about a siege of Samarkhel. It's about the Battle of Jalalabad (1989) with no mention of Samarkhel being besieged. Exactly the same goes for Roy 2014, p. 135. The AuthorHouse self-published book isn't about a siege, either. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin Barry's Top 20 Countdown

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

The website does not exist, the page is orphaned and has not been maintained. The original page seems to have been largely an exercise in self-promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimRob (talk • contribs) 22:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}}, which had not been done by the nominator. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Written by 94media (talk · contribs) just after the qb20.com WWW site stopped being a fake search engine and started being the WWW site for a radio show. You'll be shocked at the only things the article has ever pointed to in 13 years, which used to include the Twitter and Facebook accounts too. This is advertising. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuji Takeshima

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

Played 4 times, hasn't played since 2020 RossEvans19 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search turned up nothing, and thus under WP:SPORTSPERSON the subject of this article would not be considered notable as they have not won a significant honour nor have they been covered by secondary sources. Just to be sure, I checked out the article on Japanese Wikipedia, and the references there are similar bits of routine coverage or charts. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could hardly be less notable. More precisely, the sources in the Japanese Wikipedia are primary sources (or databases) which don't count for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torai Kamada

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

Made two appearances in 2017, hasn't played professionally since RossEvans19 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kensho Ogasawara

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

Played twice in 2017, hasn't played professionally since RossEvans19 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to notability, no significant and independent sources, nothing in the Japanese Wikipedia either, creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato Murotsu

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

Played once 6 years ago, hasn't played since RossEvans19 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Tozaki

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

Made 12 appearances in the J3 league 8 years ago, hasn't played professionally since RossEvans19 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koki Negi

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

Played 4 times in 2018, has not played since RossEvans19 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohei Ueda

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

Played 1 game in 2019, has not played professionally since RossEvans19 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Song Young-min

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

Last played in 2018, making 1 appearance, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of embroidery software

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

Fails WP:NLIST, WP:NOTDIRECTORY; a spam magnet that compares non-notable entries. This source is the only reliable one I could find that provides a software comparison, and none of the software being compared seems to be notable. Machine embroidery already provides a general overview of embroidery software. dePRODed in 2022 with the edit summary This is a fantastic resource for people interested in seeing all embroidery software solutions in a simple chart. (I have PRODed the only entry with an article, Embroidermodder, due to lack of notability.) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Software, and Lists. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Jun-hyuk (footballer)

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

Played twice in 2018, has not played in a higher league since, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. User:RossEvans19 talk 22:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial

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

Non-notable primary-research experiment.

At Talk:International Subarachnoid Aneurysm Trial, User:Bearian proposed merger to ~~Cerebral aneurysm~~ Intracranial aneurysm (CA is a redirect to IA), but after looking I didn't find content worth merging. The talk-page conversation petered out without clear resolution. DMacks (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively remains my first choice, redirect second, and delete third. I may be out of Wifi for a few days. Bearian (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not opposed to merging whatever material anyone feels fits somewhere else, I just didn't see any when I looked. This specific topic is not a specialty of mine. DMacks (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Railers

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

Defunct ABA team that fails WP:GNG, almost no sources are left besides some brief mentionings. Google only yields this Wikipedia page, and some brief articles by the Reading Eagle only about the team starting play or ceasing operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 15 February 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 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources already present in the article. The nom concedes other ghits from the Reading Eagle - a reliable source - which puts this over the GNG hump. schetm (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although The Reading Eagle is a reliable source, none of which are about the team itself, the article does not list any players or team records, it is just about the team's operation period. Not even Fandom or the stats websites have almost any of the Reading Railers players. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Hoechlin

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

Obvious advertising or promotion. Not a single good source. Does not meet any notability criteria Pollia (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Flash

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

Another defunct ABA team that fails WP:GNG, many of the sources have faded away. Google only yields this Wikipedia page, a Fandom page with only stats are references, and a brief mentioning by The Florida Times Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 15 February 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 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi-ud-Din Islamic Medical College

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

There are a few mentions like [3], [4] ~~but this is enough in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)~~ it lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Quick search and and got quite good references [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . And here are some urdu news papers references [12] [13] [14] [15] Behappyyar (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions and routine news reports are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion. I found these references right for the vote to Keep. Another thing I have seen that it is the first medical college either in Public or Private sector of Azad Kashmir. Some how that's also makes it notable. [16] [17] [18] Behappyyar (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have shared primary references. Please provide secondary sources to prove the notability. Gheus (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks these five to seven references are enough to establish notability. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

There are more references but they may fall into primary categories, but we can use them in the article.

By the way, I voted to keep on the base of these references. Now let's wait for more votes. Whatever decision is made will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of companies-related deletion discussions. Gheus (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful of sources in the article and here in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My BEFORE is hampered by my inability outside English, but what I'm seeing presented is almost entirely directory stuff, not much more than the org's website itself. As an aside, this medical school is very new and not all schools which exist are notable. BusterD (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University. Appears to be the medical college of the University. From the sources above and my own searcing I see at least two RS pieces with SIGCOV dealing the college: The Express Tribune discusses a student protest at the college in 2011 and Nawa-i-waqt, largest Urdu language paper in Pakistan, reporting on a 2021 protest at the college. In 2013 the Express Tribune reported the college was barred from accepting students, along with other institutions. However, there does not appear much more than this - most of the sourcing cited to date is directories or not reliable. Sourcing does not justify WP:OKFORK, WP:NOPAGE applies. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Lin

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

Not finding anything in the article or elsewhere that amounts to significant independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Advertising, and Fashion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taipa-Mangonui

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

This is a non-notable census tract. The actual places have their own article. BLAR was contested. One well sourced sentence is merged into Mangonui so the article would need to be redirected there for attribution if consensus is to not keep the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There were originally four separate settlements, but for the most part their history is shared. They have since become a near-continuous strip, which if it was a single settlement would be the fourth-largest town in the Far North District. I have merged information on marae to the individual settlements, and also the schools, although on reflection the schools actually might be more appropriate in this article as their enrollment comes from the wider area. I attempted to merge history after Traumnovelle's BLAR but that compromise was rejected.-Gadfium (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gadfium. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Beats

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails both GNG and NMusic. Has not charted or had any gold record, nor do they have sigcov in 3 reliable sources. Noah ^💬 20:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Object - I don't think your assessment of this is entirely fair (although can agree the page isn't in great shape at the moment). They're listed in the fidget house section of the house article as pioneers of the style (alongside Hervé whose page I'm also disappointed to see deleted). A quick Google search reveals interviews in major music publications like Complex, Vibe and Clash. Their remixes have often appeared as B-sides etc to singles by popular artists. Erasing all trace of this niche subgenre doesn't seem like a particularly helpful thing to do when the page just needs some TLC. --GrimeSpecialist (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Adding to the above: Here are mentioned among fidget house pioneers, here are highlighted as bass house pioneers, have one song charted in Billboard (although it's UK act), the debut EP got reviewed by BBC and NME, also found a couple of reviews to their fabric mix. Solidest (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sırrı Yırcalı Anatolian High School

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

There is only one good source in the Turkish article https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ege/turkiye-birincisi-bahce-10794778 and nothing in this article to explain how the school is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There is a very detailed article in the [26] source. This is [27] rebuilding article. It is first Anatolian High School in city. May be this sources can help. İmmortalance (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We commonly delete middle and high school articles much better sourced than this page. Nothing presented directly detailing the institution, just discussion of the building process. BusterD (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suporn Watanyusakul

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Sources are unreliable. one source not in the article (unsure of reliability) says his clinic is renowned. Not convinced that makes him notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Thailand. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is mentioned in this Thai journal article[28], master's thesis[29], and an article on the Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Thailand's website[30] as a pioneer of sex-reassignment surgery in Thailand, though none of the mentions are particularly in depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't close; this is promotional fluff backed by nothing in the way of sources. My initial reading made me want to tag this as G11, but since it's already at AfD, delete. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as what seems, to me, to be an unbolded Keep argument makes Soft Deletion unsuitable. Maybe this could get Deletion sourcing for Sexuality?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing mostly to Nomis/ONS, with a few additional. The book source appears not to use the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat what I said at length about original research machine-generated statistical areas and false conurbations at the two prior AFD discussions, but what I said there holds here as well.
Indeed, reading the 1966 source by Freeman, which couldn't possibly support an ONS invention from 2011, reveals that indeed it doesn't support a "built up area" at all, or even a conurbation. It talks, in fact, of the "weaving area" towns of Lancashire, also called the "cotton mill towns", and more formally the Lancashire cotton industry, which a redirect to a couple of sentences really does not do justice to, given the existence of entire books just on that subject (e.g. Mary B. Rose's History since 1700 and stuff by Sydney John Chapman) and articles like JSTOR 2589825, JSTOR 621119, and JSTOR 1810346.
This article has no bearing on improving Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" or "cotton mill" towns into a break-out sub-article, however. This subject has not escaped the confines of its creator in what is now 12 years. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they false conurbations? I weakly support deletion but this is definitely a conurbation by definition of the word. Its just not notable enough for an article. The 1966 source (conurbations of Great Britain) has a whole section on the Burnley conurbation on page 240. Amongst other things it says: "Along the road and canal through Brierfield to Nelson and Barrowford there is continuous town". I'm unsure what you mean about the Weaving area? That book clearly says that the weaving area includes four conurbations: Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington and Rossendale and then goes into detail on all four. Eopsid (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you be mis-reading the book this badly? Freeman has the words "The 'weaving area' Towns" in italics right there in front of you, and then goes on to list towns. Burnley is called a "town" in the very first sentence below that heading, and several times further on on that very same page; a town "in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire". We have an article on the town of Burnley: Burnley. If you had looked in the index, you'd have found Burnley also on page 222, where it is called a "cotton town".
    This is false sourcing by an article creator that often just string-matches highly inappropriate sources, in this case a source that pre-dates the ONS creating these statistical polygons with a computer by 45 years. (That's not the worst of it. Another article from this creator had a 19th century report of a cricket match being used to support a 21st century false suburb, when — just as here — we already had an existing article on the cricket club by almost but not quite the same title. And the "suburb" is actually a park, the remnants of a 19th century manor house and grounds, which encompasses the cricket club.) The stuff about the canal isn't about a group of settlements in the source, as this article has it; it is specifically about "the valley to the north of Burnley". We already have an article on the River Calder, whose valley it is, too; and that article already even has mention of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal that Freeman mentions crosses the valley.
    If you'd then tried to find out what Freeman meant by "weaving area towns", you would have almost immediately turned up sources such as Manchester and its Region (roughly contemporary with the Freeman source, at 1962 and published by MUP) which has the "Weaving area" followed by the "Spinning area", both groups of towns (it saying the word "towns" 5 times in one paragraph) that include for the weaving area "The three larger towns of Blackburn, Accrington, and Burnley". The larger context of what it is discussing for these "area"s is the textiles industry, i.e. the Lancashire cotton industry. It's what Rex Pope is talking about in xyr 2000 book Unemployment and the Lancashire Weaving Area: 1920-1938.
    There are loads of books and articles on the economic/industrial history and geography of the Lancashire cotton industry, many explaining what the towns in Lancashire's "weaving area" are, and it is not good to prefer to merge falsely sourced bad content trying to prop up a statistical polygon than actually address a proper topic, especially when a mis-used source explaining a group of "fifteen town units in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire" is staring us all in the face.
    Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Sorry but I dont think I'm misreading it. Its a book called conurbations of Great Britain and has a section on a conurbation it calls Burnley. It also calls Burnley a town but that doesnt mean there isnt also a conurbation centred on Burnley. The source even gives seperate population figures for the town of Burnley (80,600) and the group of towns (i.e. the conurbation) centred on it (156,000). Eopsid (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Is the misunderstanding here that we are using different definitions for the term conurbation? Eopsid (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think this should be merged with the Burnley article Eopsid (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It is badly sourced inaccurate content, not even correctly representing what the Freeman source says, for starters, that should not be re-used. As explained above, we already have the town, the valley, the canal and others in their proper articles; and this content isn't accurate or on point for the Lancashire cotton industry, because it's just throwing misrepresented factoids together as synthesis for a statistical polygon. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created by someone who did not understand the subject. Now it will be deleted by people who do not understand the subject. Classic Wikipedia! @Uncle G: Adding more bullshit to try to coverup the limitations of your understanding is hardly helpful. "Built-up area", "urban area", "Metropolitan area and "conurbation" all practically mean the same thing. The idea that these where invented for the 2011 census is ludicrous.TiB chat 18:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TiB - the personal attacks on other editors, here and in the edit summary, get us nowhere. What would assist is if you could provide some R/S that use the term. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which term? Which is the point I made. Not that it matters. This is already a done deal. There is no point saving this article and deleting all the others. Also, I attacked the content not the person who wrote it.TiB chat 19:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Someone who did not understand the subject” / “people who do not understand the subject” / “the limitations of your understanding” / “bullshit” / “wtf”. But still no R/S to suggest. Ah well. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by every statement. I am in a bad mood today and on another I might chosen to be less robust, but if people are offended by the truth that is their problem. As I already said, there is no point wasting more time with extra research. I already found a fantastic source for all these articles (Freeman) and shared it at WT:UKGEO four years ago. Not only did nobody do anything about it then, it is now being severely misrepresented here. I don't have the time to fix all these articles and I doubt almost anyone will care if they go. I'm just howling at the moon.TiB chat 22:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case Trappedinburnley wants to bring new RS into the discussion. Sorry for your frustration, AFDs can have that effect, but, please, civility even in the midst of heated disagreements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YIHETANG

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This content is a English version of Wikipedia translation using Wikipedia. The content has been reviewed and hopes to pass 雪影惊鸿 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yihetang is a major Chinese tea chain with over 8000 outlets and the Chinese article at zh:益禾堂 is reasonably sourced. Their presence on the English internet is minimal so far, but they're starting a major overseas push into SE Asia. Jpatokal (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Company makes product. Product is distributed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of companies. Nothing presented or found directly details why this is more than just a company listing. User:Jpatokal's keep would go better with ANY citations which prove this company should be covered in English Wikipedia. Barring that, delete. BusterD (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for sources to be in English. If there are enough Chinese WP:RS for Chinese WP, that's fine for English too. Jpatokal (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there is no requirement for sources to be in English. I made no such assertion. I also agree English Wikipedia has different sourcing requirements than other Wikipedias. We are talking about this particular article and the sources from which it was sourced. A high sourcing threshold is required to pass WP:CORPDEPTH, because otherwise English Wikipedia would soon become itself weak tea; merely a tool for advertisers. I am very interested in what User:Jpatokal has in answer to Valareee's query below. BusterD (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to spend some time cleaning up the article once we have agreement that the subject of the article is noteworthy. To me it seems blindingly obvious that a major Chinese brand with more outlets than eg Wendys is notable, and I find it a sadly typical example of WP:BIAS that the delete votes are coming from editors who do not appear to be familiar with China and are unable to read Chinese sources. Jpatokal (talk) 00:40, 16 February 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, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started through the sources, and m are self-sources, documents, routine reporting, bare mentions. Jpatokal, which three sources do you think represent sigcov in RS independent of the subject? Valereee (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, referring to the Chinese version, I'd start with [31], [32] and [33]. Jpatokal (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So your top three sources are 1), 原标题消费者报告|益禾堂食安问题频发，这次用了过期布丁 (machine translation: "Consumer Report | Yihetang has frequent food safety issues, this time it used expired pudding"), 2) 益禾堂再曝使用过期食材新式茶饮企业为何问题频发？(translation: Yihetang is once again exposed for using expired ingredients. Why do new tea beverage companies have so many problems?), and 3) 曾宣称打造三级品质攻坚保障体系！益禾堂为何仍食安风波不断 (translation: Once claimed to build a three-level quality assurance system! Why is Yihetang still facing constant food safety controversy?). These are sources which you believe make this distributor notable enough to have an article? BusterD (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources are Sina Corporation, Southern Metropolis Daily and Securities Daily. These are reliable sources, they're independent of the company, and each article provides significant coverage of multiple scandals associated with the company, thus fulfilling each pillar of WP:GNG. So what exactly are you objecting to here? Jpatokal (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Huang, Zhenru; Liu, Caihong (October 2020). "Research on the Marketing Strategy of Tea Industry from the Perspective of Consumers——Taking "Yihetang" as an Example". 财经与管理. doi:10.26549/cjygl.v4i10.5935. ISSN 2529-7848. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The abstract notes: "In recent years, tea industry has developed rapidly in China. “Yihetang” adheres to the “customer first, keep improving”, based on the national university business district, highlighting the consumption preferences of college students. This paper analyzes the operating performance of “Yihetang” from 8 indicators based on descriptive statistics, and then its key success factors are identified by factor analysis. The results show that among the 8 indicators, four principal factors sequenced by their weight can be extracted: profit factor (F1), product factor (F2), operation factor (F3), production factor (F4), the linear regression analysis of each factor is carried out to sum up the contribution of each factor to the customer’s love degree, and finally puts forward some suggestions for improvement of its management strategy"
2. Kamen 咖门; Zhengyu 政雨 (2019-08-26). Sun, Chao 孙超 (ed.). "蜜雪冰城、古茗、益禾堂，都是如何把店开过1000家的？" [How did Mixue Bingcheng, Guming, and Yihetang manage to open over 1,000 stores?]. Jiemian News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "2周前在武汉，见了益禾堂老板胡继红。这个品牌，从2012年开始做，今年要把店开到4000家。可以说，乘着新茶饮的风潮一路狂飙。... 2014年，益禾堂门店数破了100，之后以每年翻番的速度增长。... 在益禾堂，是通过省级代理的模式，进行价值链的传递。总部直接管控省代，省代为加盟商提供服务。省代的人从信任的加盟商里选，经过长时间合作，对人品、品牌认知度、行业认知度有了解。益禾堂总部和省代之间，没有控股、没有约束，就是授权。"
  From Google Translate: "Two weeks ago in Wuhan, I met Hu Jihong, the boss of Yihetang. This brand started in 2012, and this year they are going to open 4,000 stores. It can be said that they are riding the wave of new tea drinks and have been growing rapidly. ... In 2014, the number of Yihetang stores exceeded 100, and has since doubled every year. ... In Yihetang, the value chain is delivered through the provincial agency model. The headquarters directly controls the provincial agents, and the provincial agents provide services to franchisees. Provincial agents are selected from trusted franchisees, and after a long period of cooperation, they have an understanding of their character, brand awareness, and industry awareness. There is no controlling stake or constraint between the Yihetang headquarters and the provincial agents, just authorization."
3. Feng, Jiaju 冯家钜; Zhu, Wanyi 朱婉怡 (2023-02-24). Feng, Jiaju 冯家钜 (ed.). "曾宣称打造三级品质攻坚保障体系！益禾堂为何仍食安风波不断" [Once Claimed to Build a Three-Tier Quality Assurance System! Why Does Yihetang Still Face Ongoing Food Safety Scandals?]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "南都·湾财社记者注意到，在不到一年的时间里，益禾堂多次因食品安全问题冲上热搜，彼时，为了加强终端管理，其还曾表示“下决心打造三级品质攻坚保障体系”。"
  From Google Translate: "Southern Metropolis Daily reporters noticed that in less than a year, Yihetang has been on the hot search list many times due to food safety issues. At that time, in order to strengthen terminal management, it also stated that it was "determined to build a three-level quality assurance system.""
  The article notes: "据壹览商业统计，2022年益禾堂开店数量高达508家，门店总量多达5600家。从新茅·品牌百强榜数据来看，益禾堂的营收增速在逐渐放缓，从2020营收8亿，到2021年12.1亿，据新茅榜数据估算，2022年预估营收大概是11亿，因为2022年受疫情影响最大，门店关停数量其实超过100家，相较2021年同比增速51%，2022年增速预估下滑达-8.7%（预估）。"
  From Google Translate: "According to Yilan Business statistics, Yihetang opened 508 stores in 2022, with a total of 5,600 stores. According to the data from the New Maotai Brand Top 100 List, Yihetang's revenue growth rate is gradually slowing down, from 800 million in 2020 to 1.21 billion in 2021. According to the New Maotai data, the estimated revenue in 2022 is about 1.1 billion. Because 2022 was the year most affected by the epidemic, the number of store closures actually exceeded 100. Compared with the year-on-year growth rate of 51% in 2021, the growth rate in 2022 is estimated to decline by -8.7% (estimated)."
4. Wang, Ziyang 王子扬 (2024-12-06). Tang, Zheng 唐峥 (ed.). "下沉市场的奶茶"县主"，益禾堂的眼光与实践" [The Milk Tea 'County Lord' of the Lower-Tier Markets: Yihetang's Vision and Practice]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16 – via NetEase.
  The article notes: "2006年，益禾堂品牌创始人胡继红打造了第一家饮品店“畅饮港”。2012年，“畅饮港”正式更名为“益禾堂”，同年推出的“益禾烤奶”，再次火爆市场，也成为益禾堂的经典爆款产品。... 在益禾堂的发展史中，县级市场是其重要布局。据了解，目前益禾堂有20%左右的门店位于县镇市场，比如陕西省榆林市靖边县、河南省焦作市武陟县、河北省保定市雄县等，面积都接近100平方米。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2006, Hu Jihong, the founder of the Yihetang brand, created the first beverage store "Changyingang". In 2012, "Changyingang" was officially renamed "Yihetang". The "Yihe Baked Milk" launched in the same year was once again popular in the market and became a classic hit product of Yihetang. In the development history of Yihetang, the county market is its important layout. It is understood that about 20% of Yihetang's stores are currently located in county and town markets, such as Jingbian County, Yulin City, Shaanxi Province, Wuzhi County, Jiaozuo City, Henan Province, Xiong County, Baoding City, Hebei Province, etc., with an area of nearly 100 square meters."
5. Fang, Shiqi 方诗琪 (2021-07-25). Xiang, Xueni 向雪妮 (ed.). "益禾堂奶茶新品宣传文案被指侮辱女性！致歉称品牌方审查失误" [Yihetang's New Milk Tea Promotional Copy Accused of Insulting Women! Apologizes, Claims Brand's Review Process Was Flawed]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "近日，益禾堂因在其新品宣传中使用“这么大一杯够你三四个秘书喝”“空姐的品质吉祥村的价格”等文案，被指低俗、涉嫌侮辱女性，引发舆论哗然。7月25日，益禾堂在其官方账号发布致歉信称，此次事件系品牌方审查失误导致的不当发布行为，已删除了各平台相关视频。"
  From Google Translate: "Recently, Yihetang was accused of being vulgar and suspected of insulting women for using copywriting such as "Such a big cup is enough for your three or four secretaries to drink" and "The quality of stewardesses is the price of Jixiang Village" in its new product promotion, which caused an uproar in public opinion. On 25 July, Yihetang issued an apology letter on its official account, saying that the incident was an improper release caused by the brand's review error, and the relevant videos on various platforms have been deleted."
  The article notes: "据悉，益禾堂品牌创立于2012年，是武汉熠汇饮科技有限公司旗下的茶饮品牌，因“烤奶”产品为消费者熟知。据悉，目前，益禾堂现有门店超4000家，产品主打平价，定价普遍在8-20元。"
  From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Yihetang brand was founded in 2012 and is a tea brand under Wuhan Yihuiyin Technology Co., Ltd. It is well-known to consumers for its "baked milk" products. It is reported that Yihetang currently has more than 4,000 stores, and its products are mainly affordable, with prices generally ranging from 8 to 20 yuan."
6. Liao, Yuting 廖玉婷 (2024-05-09). "长青的叶修，"拉胯"的益禾堂？饥饿营销式联名伤了谁的心" [The Evergreen Ye Xiu, the 'Underperforming' Yihetang? Who's Heart Was Hurt by the Hunger Marketing Collaboration?]. The Time Weekly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "益禾堂与《全职高手》联名因供应不足、倒卖现象引发争议。... 《消费者报道》在益禾堂微信小程序上浏览附近门店联名套餐的在售情况，如出一辙地看到全职高手联名均已售罄，上线第一天就出现了“僧多粥少”的尴尬局面。点单页面显示“亲爱的玩家，本店荣耀周边已售罄，感谢您的喜爱”“本店周边正在路上，可以添加门店微信，到店后第一时间联系”。"
  From Google Translate: "The joint venture between Yihetang and "The King's Avatar" has caused controversy due to insufficient supply and reselling. ... "Consumer Report" browsed the sales of joint packages in nearby stores on Yihetang WeChat applet, and saw that the joint products of "The King's Avatar" were all sold out. On the first day of the launch, there was an embarrassing situation of "too many people and too little porridge"."
7. Zeng, Fanying 曾繁莹 (2023-09-26). "尊嘟假嘟？！益禾堂要变红了？". Guangzhou Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "新式茶饮品牌益禾堂，相信大家都不陌生。... 益禾堂变红，是从益禾堂的奶茶开始的。即将重磅推出的中国红轻乳茶，光从名字看就红气十足。中国红轻乳茶之所以叫中国红，是因为这款产品选用的茶叶之一就叫“中国红”。... 不仅如此，中国红也是益禾堂继桂花玉露后，在轻乳茶赛道的第二个大动作。"
  From Google Translate: "I believe everyone is familiar with Yihetang, a new style tea brand. ... Yihetang became popular because of its milk tea. The Chinese Red Light Milk Tea, which is about to be launched, is very popular just by looking at the name. The reason why Chinese Red Light Milk Tea is called Chinese Red is because one of the teas used in this product is called "Chinese Red". ... Not only that, Chinese Red is also Yihetang's second big move in the light milk tea track after Osmanthus Jade Dew."
8. Lin, Chen 林辰 (2024-09-19). "出海弄潮儿 | 益禾堂：不走自降身段的路，聚焦性价比前先定位中高端" [Trailblazers Going Global | Yihetang: Not Taking the Path of Downgrading, Focus on Cost-Performance After Positioning as Mid-High End]. Caijing (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "起源湖北，历经15年在国内拥有约5560家门店的益禾堂，在强势的两广布局了超1700家门店。也是如此，其影响力自然辐射到东南亚市场。... 如今的益禾堂在越南开放加盟并完成近30家门店的签约，位于雅加达的印尼首店也于近日正式开张。... 这家国内近3成门店都为乡镇店的大众价位茶饮品牌，并不想走复制粘贴的路线。"
  From Google Translate: "Originated from Hubei, Yihetang has about 5,560 stores in China after 15 years, and has deployed more than 1,700 stores in the strong Guangdong and Guangxi. Similarly, its influence naturally radiates to the Southeast Asian market. ... Today, Yihetang is open for franchising in Vietnam and has signed contracts for nearly 30 stores. The first store in Indonesia, located in Jakarta, was also officially opened recently. ... This popular tea brand with nearly 30% of its stores in towns and villages does not want to take the route of copying and pasting."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yihetang (Chinese: 益禾堂) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Over Isla Island

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

Fails WP:GNG as an individual episode. Can't find anything on Google Books, while Google News is just listicles from pop culture websites. Sources provided on page are just ratings digests that don't even name the episode, and even the one review reviewed everything else on Fox that night. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can't search for sources right now to check if it should be kept, but I would suggest redirecting to the season article instead of deleting if it is not kept, as episode titles are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now willing to say redirect – one review is insufficient to keep, and I failed to find further reviews or coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:RunningTiger123, can you provide a redirect target article you are suggesting? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Nelemans

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

Nelemans spent his entire career at amateur levels before apparently retiring in 2013. Secondary source analysis from my search:

Omroep Brabant: Transfer rumor
Eindhovens Dagblat: Managerial announcement
Amateur Voetbal Eindhoven: Interview with small independent analysis and seems to be a local source.
Algemeen Dagblad: Paywalled and only contains him in an image caption.

None of those references contain significant coverage that are required for Wikipedia. Corresponding article on Dutch Wikipedia is just an unsourced dumping ground.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article on nl.wiki also doesn't bring anything promising. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 228 apps and 51 goals in the Dutch professional second division, there will be offline sources out there, per WP:COMMONSENSE. There are sufficient online sources that WP:HEY will apply. Giant Snowman 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I agree with GiantSnowman above. This player had a long career in a professional league at the dawn of the internet age. WP:COMMONSENSE indeed applies. The article itself is awful, for the record, but that's no matter. Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't say that! It's no matter if you are not the subject of an inaccurate and unsourced biography of a living person on English Wikipedia. It's quite another matter if you are such a person. The subject is a human being who we have reason to think is alive; a crappy article about them makes them look crappy to everybody who doesn't know them. I'll concede en.wiki often keeps awful articles about lots of subjects, but not so many unsourced BLPs. We've had many meta-discussions on this sort of subject and SPORTSPERSON was the guideline we settled upon. We have mere statistics presented. Zero SIGCOV? Delete. BusterD (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What? I'm not sure I'm following you here. As far as my understanding is concerned, the quality of the article itself is not what we discuss here. So here, the fact that the article is awful is indeed no matter. The fact that the article is unsourced currently also does not mean it is incapable of being sourced. The timing of this person's career makes it such that there is very likely WP:SIGCOV somewhere, possibly outside the reach of digital searches. Thus the reliance on WP:COMMONSENSE. Anwegmann (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a car wash or a golf club, you'd have a case. This is a living human. English Wikipedia contributors agreed to SPORTSPERSON as a compromise with sports enthusiasts over this kind of stats-only BLP violation. This type of article was discussed at some length. COMMONSENSE was brought up then. WP:SPORTSPERSON was the agreement. If all you can verify is stats, delete. We have insufficient RS to create an article about a living person. BusterD (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are making a strange point. There are no verifiability problems, nor are the sources "stats only", nor are the sources unreliable. But there is a big in-depth question. Geschichte (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one source which directly details. Failing that, this is an uncited BLP. BusterD (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: fwiw I also found [34] [35] [36] Geschichte (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ahnaf

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

WP:BLP of an actor and model, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or models. As always, actors and models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable source coverage -- but the attempted notability claim here is staked entirely on supporting or bit parts in films that don't even have Wikipedia articles about the films, and the article is sourced entirely to short blurbs and public relations fluff rather than substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant roles (including various lead roles) in series and films (that have a Wikipedia page in Indonesian/Malay) and received coverage in those languages and, to a lesser extent, in English. The page needs expansion

The productions include: Syurga Itu Bukan Mudah (2023); Kahar: Kapla High Council (2024); Scammer Geng Marhaban (2023); Gamers Mangkuk (2023).) Coverage in English includes: https://sea.ign.com/entertainment/208982/news/explores-the-lives-of-amateur-esports-players-in-new-comedy-series-gamers-mangkuk ;https://www.cinema.com.my/articles/news_details.aspx?search=2025.n_kaharheadtoastrofirst_68231 https://thesun.my/style-life/prequel-that-stands-on-its-own-HG13375222 https://thesun.my/style-life/fight-back-to-school-EL10826442

A lot of interviews have introductions that allow to verify the roles and their significance (as well as the notability of the productions). https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2024/10/1124348/showbiz-thats-not-my-photo-why-am-i-being-blamed-–-amir-ahnaf for example or "people/fashion" coverage allowing the same, such as https://www.mens-folio.com/style/boys-will-be-boys-smir-ahnaf-aedy-ashraf-sky-iskandar-superdry/ https://hype.my/2023/324380/actor-amir-ahnaf-on-his-darkest-moment-feeling-empty-after-projek-high-council-success/

A lot more exists in English and in other languages. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Fashion, and Indonesia. -Mushy Yank. 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle

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

While this has a short receptions section, it is made of a few WP:SIGCOV mentions in passing, listicles, and even some passing commentary from a minor YouTuber. this fails WP:GNG. At best, this can be redirected, per WP:ATD-R, to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if this didn't have enough sources for an article; this is almost certainly extremely well documented from 1960s and 1970s sources alone. I haven't looked too far yet but the very first result is something that isn't even in the article yet, a 2001 Billboard piece reporting Vince Clarke and Martyn Ware naming their album this. Second result (ISBN 9781785306396) is about Dinky dedicating an entire plant to just this one toy. Third result is Bentley's book, already liberally used in the article. Fourth result is an Amberly book that has the SPV, not even used in the article (ISBN 9781445648736). Given the designer, almost certainly ISBN 9781932563825, again not even used in the article, is probably worth a look. The next result is ISBN 9780563534815, already used by the article. And so on. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Note that subsequent comments suggest lack of SIGCOV. Did you see anything that you consider meeting SIGCOV in the sources you checked? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have copies of Bentley's books, but the fact that the article at hand at the time of nomination cites pages 21 and 53 of the 2001 one and pages 81, 163–164, and 196–197 of the 2017 one indicates that it isn't just mentioning the subject in passing. The Amberley book gives the toy form just under a page of prose followed by another half page of captioned pictures. The August 2006 PC Magazine cited in the article is indeed that whole page and directly about the relevant computer kit. I don't have a copy of the Fryer book ISBN 9781781555040 which calls it a "Spectrum SPV", which is RAS syndrome.
    One telling source is the Haynes Manual Captain Scarlet Spectrum Agents' Manual already cited at the time of nomination which treats the subject in detail and with the taking-non-cars-seriously approach of the the Haynes series according to every blurb and review that I can find. One describes that book as having "fully annotated cutaway drawings of Spectrum vehicles", and that seems to agree with the article at hand citing 6 pages of it, which some copyright violators on Pinterest hint to be several 2-page spreads with prose.
    The reason that I suspect there to be many contemporary sources, difficult to find in the (ahem!) 21 century, is that in my own second-hand book collection there is a 1967 Captain Scarlet Annual, which has a 2-page annotated spread on pages 50–51, although with no production information; and that didn't turn up in any catalogue search that I did.
    Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am dubious about there being WP:SIGCOV as opposed to a lot of trivial mentions, and the same is true of all the vehicles in this series. Merging them all to a list of vehicles might be apt if they are talked about as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Coverage isn't much more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons: I agree with nom that the sources are trivial, but I definitely think it could be salvaged. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since nomination, the over-long "appearances" section has been removed and the rest of the content expanded. I have most of the cited books. Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book, the Anderson biography and 21st Century Visions, which together discuss the more unusual design aspects (e.g. the reversed seating) across several pages. Hardly trivial or passing mentions. The topic is also significant commercially, with a large number of toys and models through the decades, which have been discussed directly and in detail by multiple print sources (from Meccano Magazine in the '60s, to the Burman book linked by User:Uncle G, to the recent reviews in Diecast Collector). Sources are clear that this was one of the all-time best-selling diecasts, at least in the UK, and certainly Dinky's most successful product. Additionally, there is demonstrable cultural impact from the Scott coverage, which was picked up by Motorsport Network and Boing Boing (and with ~ 8 million subscribers / 2 billion views, is Scott really a "minor" YouTuber?) – plus the LaCie coverage, Andrew English in The Daily Telegraph and some pretty deep stuff from Mark Bould, a published academic. When all these elements are taken together, the topic passes the GNG. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 02:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperMarioMan I do appreciate you working on this, but hmmm. You say "Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book", but the description I see of that book (I am unable to locate it for browsing - if you have a link, please share) suggests it is a plot summary; and indeed in our article it only cited for in-universe info (stats - speed, engine, etc.). By "the Anderson biography" I assume you mean The Authorised Biography of Gerry Anderson? We use it for a few quotations from the show creator about it; sadly, I cannot find that book to browse online either. I am concerned it fails the independent requirement - the show creator (effectively, the vehicle creator) talks about it, for what I assume are a few paragraphs in his biography - but who else does so at length? Ditto for 21st Century Visions, as it is a book by the other designer of this vehicle ("The SPV was designed by special effects director Derek Meddings based on a brief description given in the Andersons' original script for the first episode" - as our article says). I am concerned that this is borderline not enough. I'll ping User:Daranios and User:TompaDompa who have good track of reviewing such content and sources and who may be able to say more (and I'll note that Uncle G already pinged by you found some other sources that may or may not be relevant). This might be saved, but looking at the article's reception, I still fear we are just cobbling together mentions in passing from here and there. That has not been enough to save fiction-themed articles in the past (having said all of that, I certainly see there's a lot of useful content here for merging somewhere...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact contents of the Boxtree book escape me, but I do know that it goes into the minutiae of the vehicle. The Anderson biography is not just Anderson's comments; author Hearn talks about the commercialisation and toy design process (that part is not yet in the toys section). The toys section already cites non-trivial (several paragraphs to full page length) write-ups in print media. The reception section includes the vehicle inspiring a YT experiment (which other media then commented on); the vehicle providing the lead-in to a national newspaper preview of a real-life vehicle; and multi-page discussion from an academic, relating to the design aspects discussed further up the article. To consider all of this only "passing" coverage relies on a very broad definition of the term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review additions provided since the article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE Industrial Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with history to Belcan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following my weak "keep" above, an article has just come out explaining my concerns about this company and its purchase of Paragon. Whether this is deemed good reason for its inclusion in a work of reference like Wikipedia is up for debate, but it's certainly becoming increasingly noteworthy. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (10 February 2025). "Revelations of Israeli spyware abuse raise fears over possible use by Trump". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions AE Industrial Partners once: "The person also pointed out that Paragon was now a US-owned company, following its takeover by AE Industrial Partners.". This is a trivial mention and plainly does not rise to the standard of significant coverage necessary. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you've read and fully understood WP: SIGCOV. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a passing mention used in a single sentence, trivial zero information on the company. It is a complete fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I'm sure there is something else going on here. scope_creep^Talk 05:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Block (basketball)

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

No sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED) in reliable sources. The single play with a broader game, with a broader finals series is already well discussed at 2016 NBA Finals#Game 7. Note that this proposal follows from the reversal of a December merge (see Talk:2016 NBA Finals#Merger discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Pretty clear evidence of sustained coverage:

Top NBA Finals moments: LeBron James' chasedown block in Game 7 of 2016 NBA Finals

https://www.nba.com/news/history-finals-moments-lebron-chasedown-block-2016

LeBron James Talks Block on Andre Iguodala in NBA Finals: 'I'm Getting This S--t'

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10116277-lebron-james-talks-block-on-andre-iguodala-in-nba-finals-im-getting-this-s--t

Andre Iguodala recalls getting blocked by LeBron in the NBA Finals: "It really sounded like an M80, like fireworks"

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/andre-iguodala-recalls-getting-blocked-by-lebron-in-the-nba-finals

When LeBron swooped in and changed the course of Cavs' history

https://www.espn.com.au/nba/playoffs/2016/story/_/id/16544563/nba-finals-2016-oral-history-lebron-chasedown-block

LeBron James had the block — and nearly the dunk — of his life to help win Game 7

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/20/lebron-james-had-the-block-and-nearly-the-dunk-of-his-life-to-help-win-game-7/

Andre Iguodala Talks LeBron James' Blocked Shot in Game 7 of 2016 NBA Finals

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2672475-andre-iguodala-talks-lebron-james-blocked-shot-in-game-7-of-2016-nba-finals

Richard Jefferson says LeBron's block in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals is the best defensive play in league history: "A split second later, that's goaltending"

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/richard-jefferson-says-lebrons-block-in-game-7-is-the-best-defensive-play-in-history

Reliving LeBron James's Block in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals

https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/20/open-floor-podcast-best-games-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-block-game-7

I can grab tons more if you'd like but these are articles from 2024 and pretty much every year since 2016. Nkulasingham (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies that should be Keep instead of Strong Oppose Nkulasingham (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing anything in the links presented above which calls this "The Block" except Boston.com, which in my opinion was trying to make "fetch" happen. Fine with redirecting to James as an atd. We're in no way close to NEVENT here, but we do have a number of links which happen to utilize the article "the" in front of the noun "block". BusterD (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chandler (The Last Ship)

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

Fictional character. Pure plot summary. Fails WP:GNG; my BEFORE fails to find anything useful. Per WP:ATD-R can be merged or just redirected to List of The Last Ship characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia articles need reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Last Ship characters as an alternative to deletion per nom. ✗plicit 14:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Last Ship characters has been opened.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Last Ship characters

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

Contains only plot summary written in universe, with a ridiculous degree of detail such as tables of the medals worn by the fictional characters. Apart from a few casting announcements, the list is referenced only to the TV show itself; there is no third-party coverage. Even if such coverage could be found, the article fails WP:NOTPLOT and would need a dose of WP:TNT even if the topic were to be deemed notable. Sandstein 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller Jr.

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

WP:BLP of a businessman, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople.
The article passingly describes him as a serial businessman, but makes no attempt at documenting any specific achievements in business that could be measured against our inclusion criteria for businesspeople at all, and instead stakes his notability entirely on who his parents and grandparents were. But notability is not inherited, so being related to other famous people is not grounds for a Wikipedia article per se -- he would have to achieve notability in his own right for his own accomplishments, not just be somebody's son.
And for referencing, this is based on the university alumni newsletter of his alma mater, which is not a reliable source at all, and two articles about real estate transactions, which would be acceptable as simple verification of facts but are not notability-makers as they're not about him doing anything noteworthy.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can actually beef the article up with an actual notability claim and better sourcing for it, but neither being somebody's son nor putting his homes up for sale are enough all by themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, New Jersey, and New York. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of my first edits (copied the "serial businessman" part from his dad's personal life section) but I'd say it might be fine to just delete it. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at this and googling Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller Jr. (like that specifically) I could not find anything what so ever that linked to him. Delete. Time to let the "baby" (not WP:OWN) go. ThatTrainGuy1945 (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject appears to fail WP:ANYBIO and I see little to no attention that isn't based on family connections. Being a Rockefeller doesn't by itself entitle him to a page, and there's WP:BIOFAMILY to keep in mind. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am usually a Keep/Improve person but I did some searches via the sources and other than him being born and giving a eulogy for his dad when he died (and yes that expensive apartment) I don't see him as hitting notability for WP:ANYBIO. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The minimal sourcing here suggests that this person has not sought out the public spotlight as some of his relatives did. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat should we delete this per WP:SNOW? 71.236.127.123 (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should let this AfD play out for the usual 7-day period before deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge this information into the family section on his father's page. No good secondary sources confirm notability.AuroraTiara (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Drdpw (talk) 00:31, 16 February 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (also, expanded from 1,781 to 6,990 bytes). (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yo quiero ser tonta

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

Unreferenced film stub. Not clear this work passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. 4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of hits in Google Books though we can't access many if any of them fully, but inclusion in general books on Mexican cinema illustrates notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NFIC as an important part in the career both of Ugarte and Altolaguirre (respectively director/writer/producer and writer/producer as the numerous sources in Spanish indicate). Added a few. More sources exist. Absolutely opposed to deletion of this. -Mushy Yank. 18:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 19:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY.4meter4 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 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.

List of lap pools in San Francisco

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

This is a travel guide and not encyclopedic. WP:NOTGUIDE Kstern (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Lists, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE as well as the fact that none of these appear particularly notable. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of the Press (report)

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

Page about an extinct report with no RS supporting it, only the self-published primary sources of the report's authoring organisation. The world in data site simply aggregates the data without offering meaningful coverage. No evidence of notability or RS material capable of supporting an encyclopedia page on the topic. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check for sources? (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 16:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Construction in African Literature

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This is a WP:ESSAY. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an interesting topic, but the content is original research and therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. pburka (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep probably. The article currently only has two references, and has very few citations, but there do appear to be many sources which could be added. A quick search of Google Scholar reveals books and papers called "Unbending Gender Narratives in African Literature" (2013) [37]; Contemporary African Literature and the Politics of Gender (2020) [38]; African Literature: Gender Discourse, Religious Values, and the African Worldview (2012) [39]; Gender in African Women's Writing: Identity, Sexuality, and Difference (1997) [40]; "Constructions of Gender in Contemporary South African Crime Fiction: A Feminist Literary Analysis of the Novels of Angela Makholwa" (2016) [41]; a PhD thesis titled The construction of gender through the narrative process of the African folktale: a case study of the Maragoli folktale (2005) [42] - and that's only the first page of results from Google Scholar. So the topic certainly is notable. I note that this WP article has twice been declined at AfC because it reads like an essay - it has been shortened before being moved to mainspace, but it does still have the structure of an essay. One of the two existing sources is an MA thesis by the article creator - its list of Works Cited does include other authors writing on gender in African literature. I don't think WP:NOTESSAY applies here - this is not an essay that states a personal opinion. As for whether WP:SYNTH applies, we would have to check the sources (both cited and not yet cited here). I think it is probably worth keeping and improving, with additional sources and citations, and removing any original research and synthesis as/if we find it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Roadies: Double Cross

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

While there has been a substantial amount of work done since this was draftified previously, the references are not useful in verifying notability. It relies on two sources flagged as unreliable and used in multiple places. Substantial improvement to the referencing quality will solve this problem. Fails WP:V - I would have returned it to draft with this issue, but am prevented by WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is why we are here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with MTV Roadies. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment– This has received one full-length review (Koimoi), and with one more, it may pass WP:NF. EmilyR34 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Efisio Arru

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Google search returned few results, and the returned results weren't significant. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 14:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 14:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not at all certain that Arru fails PROF. Google Scholar citation counts for the 1960s & 1970s are always very low by modern standards, even for highly notable scientists, and most of the WL resources won't turn up anything based on someone Italian who died in 2000. Professor in 1978 in the UK would be the equivalent of department head/chair, potentially passing PROF, but I don't know anything about Italian academia from that era. I can't make the archived link (Ref 1) open on my computer -- perhaps someone who can could post a translation here? Who's who in Science in Europe appears to include an entry on him and Storia dell'Università di Sassari, Volume 2 looks to contain a 2-page piece on him (indexed here: [43]) (both snippet view only), and there are lots of other Italian hits in Google Books. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quipu (cosmic structure)

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

Standard example of WP:TOOSOON. Proposed cosmology structure based upon a single article which was accepted for publication in January 2025 (a week or two ago), plus a writeup in a popular science magazine (Smithsonian Magazine) a few days ago. No secondary sources, work is far too new to have been analyzed by the wider community. Article was draftified, pointing out that Wikipedia is not for recent proposals or neologisms, only for established science with secondary sources etc. Editor ignored draftification and moved back to main without any attempt to explain or generate a consensus. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Pages such as this belong on Facebook or similar until there is a body of secondary sources, not Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Yep, that's prime WP:TOOSOON territory. Wait for some secondary literature to pick up the term, then try to write an article about it. Sheesh, the sole source hasn't even been formally published yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yorùbá Boy Running

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

The first thing to note is the issues that were placed by CycloneYoris, the second would be that this article contains promotional words (which CycloneYoris have remove some of it). Lastly the reference only refers to the book itself, there is no other sources in this article. 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book definitely meets WP:NBOOK — see [44] [45] [46] [47] — but the article is clearly not suitable for mainspace in its current form. I'll try to find the time to fix it myself, but otherwise I would probably suggest draftifying. MCE89 (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No valid deletion rationale has been provided, ~~although WP:TNT might apply~~. pburka (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NBOOK, WP:HEY and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Kudos to MCE89. pburka (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are no independent references. Thus, as presented this fails WP:NBOOK. Should independent references be forthcoming to the extent of WP:HEY I will change my mind. I will also accept Draftify as an outcome if there are indications that draft space may allow verification of any notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've had a first go at rewriting the article — it still needs some work, but I think it's enough that WP:TNT no longer applies. I've added references from Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, The Guardian, The New York Times and the Times Literary Supplement, which should be enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK. MCE89 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets NBOOK, no quality issues. Excellent work done by MCE89 in rewriting it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kleinlein

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

It appears that this stub might just contain all the information that exists about this person: i.e. that he was a German instrument maker and anarcho-syndicalist, he was born in 1864 and died in 1925, and that he was a member of the FVdG.

I went through the Google Scholar results[48] - which include 5 German language sources, 1 English language source and 1 Portuguese language source, as well as 2 of Kleinlein's own (almost entirely uncited) books - and none of them provide significant coverage of this person; most of them provide only passing mentions, with barely even a sentence dedicated to him and no more information than what is already in this stub.

This article appears to fall very far from meeting our notability guidelines on people, and there doesn't appear to be anything worth merging into other articles. As an alternative to deletion, I could have recommended a redirect to Free Association of German Trade Unions#Pre-war period, but there are no mainspace links to this article other than that one so it would largely be a circular and redundant redirect. As such, I'm proposing this article for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, France, and Germany. Grnrchst (talk) 13:39, 15 February 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. Deleted as G4. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu v Raj

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

Being the president of Socialist Yuva Janata, which appears to be a non-notable party, does not automatically establish notability. There is nothing to justify inclusion. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Junbeesh (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Kerala. Junbeesh (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a very similar article about the same subject was deleted recently, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vishnu V Raj. Possibly a candidate for speedy deletion, but I can't remember how similar the article was. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SunloungerFrog. Agree that this might be eligible for speedy deletion under G4 — from memory I think the previous article was similar, but not sure if it was sufficiently identical. Versions of this article have already been deleted through BLPPROD at the title Vishnu V. Raj and through AfD at the title Vishnu V Raj (then G4'd twice and SALTed) in just the last month. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Almost definitely eligible for WP:G4 and WP:G5 as well. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:36, 15 February 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.

Neoauthoritarianism (China)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article should be deleted because it is essentially an extension of Conservatism in China article and does not warrant a separate entry. Neoauthoritarianism is referring to the conservative ideology within the PRC, making it more appropriate as a section within the broader article rather than a standalone page.

Merging the content into the Conservatism in China article will provide a more organized discussion of conservative thought in China without unnecessary fragmentation. Guotaian (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conservatism in China and Neoauthoritarianism (China) are different; pro-ROC, Falun Gong, other conservatives. And 'neo-conservatism' and 'neo-authoritarianism' are not synonymous. ProKMT (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and China. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Social Norms Resource Center

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

A mere 3 google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speaking of hits, Google Books has hits. Are we sure we can not get SIGCOV from here? I’m seeing atleast two in the first page. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nufan

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

Per refs given, fails WP:N and WP:NORG. No in-depth independent coverage of this org. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Crewe (2nd nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - AFC Crewe has been deleted twice at AFD, this is clearly an attempt to bypass that - I'd also consider blocking the creator for disruption. GiantSnowman 13:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ll delete my own account if you can evidence any signs of my disruption.
  I’ll reiterate what I said in a different discussion on the Nufan page; my creation of the nufan article was simply to prove that some admins have much higher influence over others and the nufan article being edited and accepted by the community until I referenced you guys into it does to at least a small extent prove this.
  Regardless of your opinion of me or of AFC Crewe the organisation Nufan has had significant coverage. Irrelevant of what the football elite admins deem significant, two bbc cites, a German TV interview and the article in The Manc newspaper is more than enough for an organisation to be deemed notable.
  So I suppose we will see how much influence a very few number of people have over the largest ‘community ran encyclopaedia’ In our history over the coming days.
  Regards Iblethebible (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Manc [49] mentions Nufan in one sentence, compare that with WP:GNG. The BBC radio refs mentions Nufan very little if at all, and consists of people connected to AFC Crewe talking about it. Such sources can have some WP:ABOUTSELF use, but they don't help the case for WP:N. I hope you'll be able to make an AFC Crewe article stick at some point, as I understand it they've done quite well, but this is not the way to go about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is almost tangible when I read a single-purpose account, putting this subject into a number of pages, saying how everyone else apart from that 1 person writing the single purpose all over Wikipedia is "a very few number of people" influencing Wikipedia. I'll take Gråbergs Gråa Sång's word for the BBC sources, since they aren't written sources. Checking out what The Manc is, it turns out to be a "social media publisher", which tallies with the source proffered being a bunch of Twitter posts. Other The Manc "news" turns out to be recitations of Twitter posts, too. So this is Twitter, Project:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter, regurgitated. The idea that if something is said on Twitter it must be true, does not make a source reliable. The best that I could find was something that was called the Nantwich News; but that turned out to state that it was a web log. I'd like to say that it could be considered reliable, but its offer of free press passes to whomever rocks up rather militated against the idea that its authors are skilled at fact checking. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, the BBC refs are about 3 min each. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V. V. Rajendran

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

Founder and president of Socialist Janata Dal in Kerala, likely a non-notable party. Doesn't make him inherently notable. No significant coverage beyond passing mentions. Nothing to justify inclusion. Junbeesh (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Kerala. Junbeesh (talk) 09:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Qazançı

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT. Could be summarized and merged to Qazançı, Agdam and sourced there if possible, then redirected. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Azerbaijan. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banani DNCC-Unique Complex

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the sources give significant coverage to the topic, Only 1-2 lines are about the building in the sources. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant)

AfDs for this article:

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

Reading the prior nomination on him, the "keep" votes were based on (presumed notability of) other existing Survivor winners (until recent years of AFD noms on certain winners).

This discussion isn't about the article quality. Rather it's about this person's general notability and any other sort of (applicable) notability thereof. He might or might not, but most of the sources used significantly covered him as the winner of Survivor: Caramoan, especially one EW article of winners list and a university's article about alumni and a CBS magazine article.

A recap article by EW details his cameo appearance in Survivor: Game Changers, but then that's just a recap article, despite the magazine being highly reputable. (BTW, the author of the article has expressed his opinions in other articles.)

I'm kinda cautious about using an ABA Journal article to verify his notability. The source was probably promoting his then-upcoming interview, which is a primary source, one of which to never use to verify this person's notability per GNG. (Will describe some other sources soon.)

I don't wanna argue with others back and forth similar to the other AFD discussion. Nonetheless, I fear similar arguments made in that discussion would be inevitable.

As said in that discussion, if WP:BLP1E isn't applicable to you, then how about WP:BIO1E instead, WP:NBASIC, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? Furthermore, WP:BLP should also apply. Indeed, I'm not confident (yet) about his notability for his Survivor: South Pacific gameplay and its compliance with the BLP policy itself.

Sure, his roles in Survivor have been significant, but his amount of major roles IMO hasn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Well, he's been a post-Survivor television writer, but whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR isn't the main issue. Rather WP:NBASIC and WP:BIOSPECIAL should supersede his (non-)compliance with WP:NAUTHOR. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Academic journals, and Washington, D.C.. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to find reliable sources verifying his (general) notability, but I can't use this questionnaire answered by the article subject himself. Entertainment Now cites IMDB, which is an unreliable (user-generated) source. I'm uncertain whether to use this profile page either. I can say the same about this source, which is citing (if not reporting) the same EW questionnaire that I wouldn't use.

Almost forgot: The page should be redirect to his winning season, Survivor: Caramoan. George Ho (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per my messages below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thowing every magic word in a attepmt to get pages you demonstrate a WP:IDONTLIKE is counter productive Wwew345t (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wwew345t, this discussion is not about George Ho, but about the article. Feel free to take your concerns to his talk page, but following him around AfD is not productive. I'll also note your comment on this talk page. win8x (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

apologies i missread the reporting system I thought I had to bring my concerns ti the page I feel the problems are occurring Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless my vote is still KEEP as there are secondary sources proving notability Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where should I put my concerns? Wwew345t (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also voted keep based on WP:NACTOR there are plenty secondary sources that establish his notability the primary sources are there to complement the artcile furthmore he doesnt meet all 3 critiera for BLP1E Wwew345t (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://patch.com/virginia/oakton/is-this-the-end-for-cochran https://www.nydailynews.com/2011/11/24/survivor-season-23-recap-coachs-scheming-side-shines-through-keith-and-whitney-couple-up-cochran-is- seasons-worst-storyteller/ https://www.masslive.com/television/2011/11/survivor_cochran_kicks_a_littl.html all of these are secondary sources covering his south Pacific appearance clearly demonstrating notability for more then one Survivor appearance also the notion that "it's a reliable source but the author has opinions" is redundant the debate is to establish sig cov in relablie secondary sources which the sources do just because the author has opinions (which is kinda the point when your covering entertainment articles lol) doesn't make a reliable source unreliable Wwew345t (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Patch article was an opinion piece by an ordinary citizen (who is a Patch member). The NY Daily News article is a recap of an episode. So is the one by The Republican (MassLive). Recaps are (summarization of) primary sources, which are discounted by GNG~~, so I gotta treat those recaps as such~~. I'm unsure how and why you reply too much and argue with me and others back and forth. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources by definition get their info from a primary source hence where they are called secondary sources the fact thats its a summarization of a primary sources makes it a secondary source Wwew345t (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a primariy source unless its an interview of someone with first hand knowledge of the event in question a receap of what happned in a tv show doesnt qualfiy as that Wwew345t (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this page and that page about what a secondary source is, well.... CBS recaps episodes... Actually, used to, but I consider CBS somewhat a primary source. (Trying to find other sources explicitly categorizing recaps as either primary or secondary sources.) George Ho (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

according to wikipedias definition of secondary sources stuff that is made after the fact with hindsight are considered secondary sources and the recaps are covering the events of episodes that had happened a couple days prior so by a very loose definition I believe they are secondary especially since no one is actually interviewed in said re caps Wwew345t (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Itd be a lot easier to determine if they listed who wrote the recap unfortunately they dont so it could be anyone that works for cbs regardless of wether or not they had anything to do with Survivor Wwew345t (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's "a very loose definition" in the sense that "made of strawberries" is a very loose definition of a motor vehicle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure you could make a case for the CBS pages being primarys but there are still the EW sources Wwew345t (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominaters stance is to redercit the article not delete it Wwew345t (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't mind the article being deleted, but redirection is my preferred stance. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Historical figure of cultural significance. And there are multiple reliable sources mentioned as citations. Maybe this article needs to be improved. But before nominating for deletion, you should always consider Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest that the article be kept but it's up to you to search for the necessary sourcing. Claims to the tune of "Surely, there are sources" or "This is a historical subject" count for nothing, I'm afraid. -The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cultural significance can be mirrored in the high amount of prilgrims seeking blessings by the figure as a saint until today (WP:RECENTISM) (WP:NOTE) (WP:GNG). Sources are independant and confirm the notability in a verifiable and traceable manner (WP:RS) (WP:V). Hence this topic has no self-promotion inherent and meets encyclopedic standards (WP:NOT)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonnaise.sandiwch.123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mayonnaise.sandiwch.123 has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while the article has undergone an expansion and more citations have been added to it, multiple references within the article do not look reliable. For example, Tazkare Khwanadane Hazrat Eshan published by a company that is part of the organization which the article subject is a member of- the Naqshbandi order or Naqshbandiyya, and E. J. W. Gibb Memorial by Nicholson, Reynold. The other sources need to be evaluated- they need to be reliable, independent and non-primary sources. Then, the article should be cleaned up, and any content attributed to unreliable or otherwise inappropriate sources should be removed. Then, what remains should be considered and the discussion on whether or not the article should be kept can continue. HyperShark244 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request: cleanup the article Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband and remove all content that is not verified through reliable, independent and non-primary sources from the article. Pinging @Onel5969: @HistoryofIran: @UrielAcosta: HyperShark244 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup complete, all content not attributed to reliable, independent and non-primary sources removed. Thank you HistoryofIran and UrielAcosta! HyperShark244 (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Onel5969: @HistoryofIran: @UrielAcosta: @Kinu: @Xxanthippe: @Bearian: @TH1980: I hope you don't mind me pinging you. Lets get this AfD debate over with. HyperShark244 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The remaining citations aren't the most impressive, and I can't find a single mention of this figure in Google ebooks. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant cover. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject cannot meet WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about the historical figure in Kashmir, so rather to add maintenance tags to improve it than to delete it. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me)
Not a valid argument for keeping the article. You merely asserted that the article subject is notable without giving anything to support your assertion, or refute what I wrote- “the article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources.” As The Gnome wrote earlier “claims to the tune of "Surely, there are sources" or "This is a historical subject" count for nothing, I'm afraid”. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the two Keeps provides a meaningful argument for retention, but we can give this another week in hope of sources surfacing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that there is much more information in the French WP article, which also has another source by an American scholar. I'll check it out and come back. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:38, 15 February 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.

Nomination withdrawn following GLL's update. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Come Together

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

At present, neither of the DAB items are specifically for the specific phrase "Let's Come Together". A quick search shows that "Sweet Harmony" is often called "Let's Come Together." The other item on the list is a DAB page. Given that we don't typically include misremembered title[s] on disambiguation pages, I feel like this is an unnecessary DAB. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:58, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now that I've expanded this. Also, wow there are a lot of songs and albums called Let's Come Together. Like, so many. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:20, 15 February 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.

Emmanuel Alade

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

No significant coverage found, non-notable individual. Not sure why this subject should have a page yet. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 07:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Architecture. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 07:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as WP:A7; I already tagged. We do not curate articles on people who blatantly fail WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Not with dubious advertorials listed as sources. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Deletion Nomination: Emmanuel Alade

I respectfully oppose the proposed deletion of the Emmanuel Alade article. The subject meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for creative professionals, as evidenced by the following:

1. Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources: BusinessDay featured an article detailing how Emmanuel Alade is creating platforms for young African creatives, highlighting his impact on the African entertainment industry. [50]

Vanguard News reported on Alade's involvement in the Black Excellence Project, emphasizing his contributions to empowering young black individuals in the field of architecture. [51]

2. Independent and Reputable Sources: The coverage comes from established and reputable news outlets, ensuring the information is both reliable and independent of the subject.

3. Impact and Recognition: Alade's initiatives, such as founding Afrobeatsglobal and Uncut Xtra Magazine, have been instrumental in promoting African music and culture, providing platforms for emerging artists. [52]

His participation in the Black Excellence Project showcases his commitment to mentoring and developing young talents in architecture and related fields. [53]

4. Professional Achievements: As an architect, Alade has contributed to notable projects, including the Eblana project in Dublin and the Abbey Street Project, demonstrating his professional expertise. [54]

Request for Article Improvement: I am committed to enhancing the article by:

Incorporating additional third-party reliable sources.
Expanding on his architectural works and entrepreneurial ventures.
Ensuring the content adheres to Wikipedia's neutrality and verifiability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleayanda (talk • contribs) 08:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: an article about a real person that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find GNG-worthy sources.Frank Ken (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Against Speedy Deletion Nomination: I respectfully request reconsideration of the deletion nomination for the Emmanuel Alade article. Multiple reputable sources, including ThisDay, BusinessDay, The Independent, and The Guardian Nigeria, have provided significant and independent coverage of his contributions to entertainment and African cultural promotion. These sources demonstrate his notability, aligning with Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (GNG). I believe this article adds value to Wikipedia’s mission of sharing knowledge and kindly urge the reviewing editor to allow further improvements rather than deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleayanda (talk • contribs) 10:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are blatant promotional pieces with mostly hidden bylines. @Waleayanda, please stop making AI-generated responses. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Devlin

AfDs for this article:

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

I no longer believe that the disambiguation is necessary as only The Green Album (Skankin' Pickle album) mention Steve Devlin by name presently. BangJan1999 07:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BangJan1999 07:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Steve Devlin of Skankin' Pickle is also named at Skafunkrastapunk and Skankin' Pickle Live. Steve Devlin is also the name of character in Stingers, played by John Brumpton, and a current defensive coordinator for the Ursinus Bears, named at List of current NCAA Division III football coaches. That said, none of these pages give detailed information about Steve Devlin, so I don't think they're overly helpful as DAB items. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I think the crux of this AfD is how we interpret MOS:DABMENTION: If the topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader (emphasis mine). Thus, the question is whether the information provided at the articles mentioned is enough to provide value to the reader. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wikipedia has very little to say about a subject, having a disambiguation page pointing to the relevant titles regarding that subject informs the reader that this is, in fact, everything that Wikipedia has to say about that subject. BD2412 T 22:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kha with inverted breve

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

Deprodded by Cyclopia. They wrote that they think that there is no notabiliny guideline for letters; I think WP:GNG applies, and I doubt that sigcov exists about this topic. Janhrach (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Alaska. Janhrach (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find one-line mentions of this "letter" in Unicode documents. Nothing needing a whole article. Lack of sourcing, not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there can be no exceptions to notability guidelines, but deletion policy can be ignored without a reason? Peter James (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James: How exactly did I ignore the deletion policy? Janhrach (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article could have been merged or redirected (or proposed for merging). It's mentioned in Aleut language#Orthography so could be redirected there, or merged to Kha (Cyrillic) where there is currently no mention. Peter James (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a mention into Kha (Cyrillic). The article is so short that I do not think it can be reasonably "merged". As for redirection, is it a problem to discuss it at AfD, especially when notability is in question and there is no single proposed redirect target? Janhrach (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that I see no specific guideline for alphabetical characters, one could fall back to WP:GNG; however it seems to me it would fail short of this peculiar subject. WP:5P1 states "Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Considering alphabetical characters as notable per se seems to me consistent with this description. I have no qualms however with a merge to e.g.Kha (Cyrillic).--cyclopia ^speak! 15:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kha (Cyrillic). The article is quite short and this letter does not seem to warrant its own article. I also can only find Wikipedia mirrors and Unicode documents mentioning anything about this character, but instead of deleting it, I think we could just merge it into Kha (Cyrillic) with a short summary of its existence in Aleut. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could find no reliable and significant coverage in independent sources. 1)-Attempts to argue semantics, that there is no "notabiliny (sic) guideline for letters" is laughable as the verifiability covers content in articles like a blanket. The Wikipedia:Notability "policy" includes: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Merging: I do not merge unsourced content. It degrades the target article and it might be hard to convince an Admin to merge unsourced content. There is no way to tell if original research is involved which could enter areas of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I didn't look but it seems Cyrillic script would have important information included. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kha (Cyrillic). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message Exchange Bus (MXB)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Message Exchange Bus (MXB)

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

not a single reasonable source Baratiiman (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If a user doesn’t know Persian or how to simply translate a Persian page to English with Google Translate, it doesn’t make all the Persian references unusable or unreasonable. The Persian references in this article come from the most reasonable, reliable, mainstream, and important news sites in the Persian language, some of which have more than 70 years of experience. The English references are not mainstream, but most of them are reliable and rational or at least secondhand, if not firsthand. Having problems with references doesn’t make the whole subject worthy of deletion; rather, adding more reliable references would be more reasonable.

Thank you for your time. Taha Danesh (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Danesh. The article does need work, though. With so many false statements in essay-like prose that I just removed, I wouldn't be surprised if the article was written with AI. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, participants are welcome to re-review this article which has been edited since its nomination,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two of the ITO sources are press releases and therefore fail WP:PRSOURCE, while the "Digital Platforms and Services" page only contains a single sentence about the MXB and therefore doesn't qualify as SIGCOV. Based on these sources alone, I would vote to delete, but I don't know enough about Iranian media (or any of the language) to make a judgment on the other sources, so I'll leave it at that. MiasmaEternal☎ 23:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly that page is made by the government, so it would be primary either way. Secondly, I think that every source that's not from ITO here qualifies for GNG, even discounting the ones I removed which also count. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep / withdrawn by nominator‎. (non-admin closure) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Higgins

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

Per WP:ONEOTHER, only two articles of people with this name. jolielover♥talk 06:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator I have misunderstood and apologize for it. Now I realize the disamb. page is valid and should stay. jolielover♥talk 06:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This dab page was created per Talk:Emma_Higgins_(footballer)#Requested_move_7_February_2025 RM which voted to move Emma Higgins (footballer) previously at the primary, I had closed the RM, moved the page, and created this dab per consensus at the RM. Courtesy pinging RM participants, @Bearcat, GiantSnowman, and Svartner:. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand, I support the move but since there are only two people with the name, I believe a disambiguation page is not needed and a hatnote should suffice. jolielover♥talk 06:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jolielover Which subject do you believe is the primary topic? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither, the name of the articles currently works as neither seem to be the primary topic. I just think a hatnote on their pages should work, e.g "For the filmmaker, see Emma Higgins (filmmaker)." jolielover♥talk 06:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but without a primary topic, then we must use the base name as a disambiguation page. Or else, where do we send people searching for "Emma Higgens"? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A hatnote does not "suffice" between two disambiguated titles. The plain title Emma Higgins must exist as one of two things: either a disambiguation page, or one of the two Emma Higginses getting moved to it as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name, and there is absolutely no option for "two disambiguated titles both hatnote to each other while leaving the plain title blank". So which Emma Higgins are you proposing to move to the plain title, since that's the only possible alternative to a dab page here? Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:TWODABS. The problem here is that neither the footballer nor the filmmaker is markedly more notable than the other for the purposes of being able to claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights for the undisambiguated name — so the plain title has to be a dab page, because it can't be either the footballer or the filmmaker. WP:ONEOTHER is for when there's a primary topic, i.e. one of the two people is markedly more notable than the other and gets to be at the plain title, so which Emma Higgins are you proposing is more notable than the other Emma Higgins here? Bearcat (talk) 06:18, 15 February 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.

Kristina Gurung

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

Role in just a single Notable film, the subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prem_Geet_3#Cast: and undo the redirect when the filmography includes more roles. -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirect. And User:Mushy Yank, I don't understand what you are advising to do besides Redirection. You have to make things very simple and clear for closers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. And later in time, if she has more roles, expand the page back into an article. -Mushy Yank. 10:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karanni

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

Having examined all the sources in the article (except the offline German article from the 1930s), and done some searches of my own, I think there is only a single sentence of information extant about this figure: he was king when Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma invaded Hayasa-Azzi. He gets namedropped in passing in histories of the Hittites, but the discussion does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sathyam gujja

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

Recreation of salted title: Sathyam Gujja, which was salted in 2021 due to constant recreation. Subject appears to lack notability, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't show much, if any, coverage from reliable sources. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a well known activist in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, he has gained more prominence in the past 4 years and deserves to be known Abcd45678 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the subject is a back ward class activist and also an educationalist.see the references^[1] D u p e s g w y n (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Just want to note that user above did not have any contributions prior to this AfD, and is likely a sock of the author. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/districts/hyderabad-news/529/124066274

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On WP:BEFORE search I didn’t found any sig cov. of this subject in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep here so I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete– A non-notable activist with no significant coverage and does not pass WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 09:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lucidity Institute

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

Article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH on WP:GNG worthy analysis of their significance -- but this is "referenced" solely to its own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of third-party coverage, and has been flagged for needing additional referencing since 2012 without ever having any better referencing added. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Psychology, and Hawaii. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesnt have reliable sources. no news could be found in my search .Darkm777 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Performance of Bangladesh Men's Cricket Team in International Cricket

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

WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Chanaka L (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Lists, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are other articles that cover all of Bangladesh's recent cricket tours already. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George DiCaprio

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Authors. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He stills fails WP:AUTHOR, as none of his work in the bibliography is notable. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- stoshmaster (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is an admirably expressive and nuanced opinion. However, our own take matters very little as far as a person's notability is concerned. Sources rule-The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a collection of random articles nor a directory of artists. And the fact that the text has been created by a kamikaze account does not exactly help. -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are at least three good sources. However, there are several sources that need to be removed and the article tagged as needing better sources, if it is kept. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the sources, obviously Leonardo DiCaprio's dad is going to have a plethora of articles about him no matter what he did. The issue is that he has no notability outside of being Leo's father. jolielover♥talk 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Indiana Stars

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

Another defunct ABA team that fails WP:GNG, All the sources have practically faded away. A Google search only brings up this Wikipedia page, and a basketball stats website that has been untouched for over 10 years.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Facebook outage

AfDs for this article:

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

Its been several years since this happened. Services go down all the time, yes this was a bit longer than most, but there isn't any lasting significance here. This event hasn't been/won't be remembered in the same way as (for example) New York City blackout of 1977 (which may be an analogous topic). After doing an internet search, I haven't seen any sustained coverage since the event (as desired by WP:PERSISTENCE). JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Companies, and Internet. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There has been plenty of coverage after the outage, including research into the outage's effects. This indicates lasting significance. [55], [56], [57], [58] (search for "outage"). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep there's retrospective academic sources on the outage (such as [59][60][61]) and the outage clearly is still remembered, as it's being cited in recent coverage of outages. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Helpful Raccoon and Elli. A search on Google Scholar shows plenty of retrospective academic sources about the outage, both from a broadly sociological perspective and from a software engineering/site reliability perspective. I think there's enough ongoing coverage to satisfy WP:NEVENT. MCE89 (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some outages are not notable. I think this is on my watchlist because there was some minor one that we redirected here as non notable, but this outage is clearly notable as per sources in the article and given above. It is a very widely used case study. No doubt at all that this one should be kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centum City

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

This article is very poorly written and has only one source. Most of the sections of the article are meaningless. There are no good sources on Centum City in English. Sgroey (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Korean counterpart of this article, ko:센텀시티, only has one source, too. This district may well be notable enough to warrant an article, but this is not the kind of article we're looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: need more significant coverages without this can't deserves standalone article. AgerJoy talk 09:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Really extensive coverage in the Korean language; google the Korean name and scroll around. This is a major development project in one of the most major districts of the second most important city in the country. Poorly written articles are not grounds for deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True Market Value

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

True Market Value is a common term. It refers to the price a buyer is willing to pay for a property, a product or service. It is not restricted to the real estate market or to online auctions. The text of this article is gibberish to me. The term True Market Value does not require a Wikipedia article; maybe an entry in wiktionary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is gibberish and the citations do not support the text. This isn't notable enough to be worth salvaging. Basedeunie042 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I see now that the page was originally a redirect to Market value. Maybe it is preferable to WP:BLAR to Market value, instead of deleting in order to preserve the edit history. I would be happy either way. Any thoughts? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more opinions not just on the quality of the article but what should happen here, Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or Draftify are your options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Market value. I'm finding some use of the term in real estate discourse, but I don't think it's an independent concept of Market Value that deserves its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagonal tiling honeycomb

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

Subject is a random hyper-compact tessellation. Nothing to establish notability. Of the sources in the article the only one that mentions this particular hyperbolic tessellation is the Nelson & Segerman preprint, which uses it as an example.

I could not find any coverage on this particular tessellation in specific anywhere (Google scholar and JSTOR come up with zero results, TWL has nothing useful). I really suspect the title for this article is WP:NEO which does confound the search a little bit.

It would be shocking if this was notable, since the article fails to provide anything other than a generic description. Pretty much everything here could be said about any hyper-compact hyperbolic tessellation, with only the specific numbers changed. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are many polytope articles we could do without, such as truncations (and cantellations and runcinations ...) of polytopes of dimension 5 and higher. —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sauj Bulagh Massacre

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

WP:N, largely relies on one source and no other verifiable sources or evidence of this massacre having occurred exist. Surayeproject3 (talk) 02:10, 15 February 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 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Iran, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I really do not see as to why you want it to be deleted, I have put 3 sources on it and there is probably more that I do not know off. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Arroyo

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentine rugby player. JTtheOG (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has played professionally for Benetton Rugby in the United Rugby Championship, a top-tier international competition, and has represented Argentina at the Under-20 level, demonstrating notability in rugby. His career has been covered by reliable sources--Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one source providing SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing beyond passing mentions on ProQuest. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manuel Arroyo meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for athletes. He has played professionally for Benetton Rugby in the United Rugby Championship and represented Argentina U20 at the international level. Multiple reliable sources confirm his career, including official team websites and news articles. His professional experience and international representation establish clear notability.AuthorChiman (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTBASIC requires at least one source providing SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any sources providing SIGCOV either. Playing professionally and representing his country's U20 team aren't evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC. MCE89 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability fails GNG. AgerJoy talk 09:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the criteria for a sportperson. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Philimon Peter

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted previously due to lack of in-depth coverage. Still fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye Project

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

Not enough independent sources. Some sources are directly from The Private Eye Project or from Kerry Ruef, its founder.

The Ed.uab.edu source is from attendees of a Private Eye talk.
The Stone and Barlow book is a collection of essays including one by Ruef about Private Eye.
The Microscopy Today source is an article by Ruef.

Other sources just briefly mention Private Eye as something that exists. One is a defunct storefront. The only independent sources that have something notable to say about Private Eye are the WBHM article and possibly the book by Robert Bernstein, which I don't have. There isn't enough here to write a neutral article. Truthnope (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Education, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airborne Athletics

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

Quick Google search turned up no secondary sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Notability not established. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 02:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDEPENDENT. Truthnope (talk) 03:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Basketball, Volleyball, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sounds a lot like the organizatiom themselves wrote the article, so WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston City Lions

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

Defunct American Basketball Association (2000-present) team that fails WP:GNG, many of the sources have faded away, the only spurce I could possibly find is by the ABA official website. Google only yields this Wikipedia page and a Fandom page also with no reliable sources.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of former American Basketball Association (2000–present) teams barring further coverage emerging. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alain J. Picard

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

A superficially nice article about a regional artist with no claim of notability. Weak citations, a few small awards, and no evidence of impact or reputation to support WP:NARTIST (e.g., "has been recognized for" links to his own site and a gallery that doesn't suport the claim). Two instructional books, no evidence of independent reviews, not a valid basis for WP:NAUTHOR. I did WP:BEFORE searches and I was unable to find anything additional to support WP:GNG.

Although not strictly a grounds for deletion, the article has hallmarks of WP:NOTCV. The lengthy gallery in particular makes this looks like a promotional page. Oblivy (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Artists. Oblivy (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources as well as WP:GNG. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 02:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 09:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plandora

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; no independent, significant coverage could be found. This article was originally about a non-notable project management application, but it appears to have been recently hijacked by a different software application also named "Plandora". Neither application meets WP:NSOFT so it should just be deleted. dePRODed in 2011 by the article's creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Software, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find SIGCOV for either of the pieces of software. The original subject has some passing mentions, mostly in older sources comparing different open source project management tools, but I wasn't able to find anything approaching SIGCOV. The new subject (the travel software) appears to be very clearly non-notable. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead of the first version of the article said:
Plandora is an open source tool to manage the software development process. It can be useful for teams that have problems with resource bottle-necks, parallel projects, workers in several projects at the same time, critical deadlines and project documentation demands.
As the nominator noted, the article was "recently hijacked by a different software application also named 'Plandora'". The lead of the hijacked version of the article says:
Plandora is a web-based travel planning application that transforms social media content into personalized travel itineraries. Developed by TBA.LABS PTE.LTD., Plandora streamlines travel planning by allowing users to capture inspiration from Instagram and TikTok, automatically extract key details, and generate editable, visually engaging itineraries.
I was unable to find significant coverage for either of the software applications. Both do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how much software gets discussed in books, which in fairness far too many editors overlook when it comes to computing topics, it was a very bad sign when a books search immediately leapt to an 18th century work by Johann Christoph Beer (1638–1712). I concur with the above. No in depth sources for either one to be found. The older piece of software, whose creator was coincidentally the same name as the Alberto.pereto (talk · contribs) who wrote the original article, showed promise, but the supposed academic coverage in Brazil turned out to be a list of merely namechecked pieces of software given as examples of tools. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious and Unusual Deaths

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

Completely unsourced article about a television show. As always, television shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them, but this cites absolutely no such coverage whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Gorman, Brian (2010-03-10). "People who met their ends with a twist". Toronto Star. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Curious and Unusual Deaths—which moves to Discovery Channel for its second season Friday, March 16, after a run on sister channel Discovery World—dramatizes offbeat ways people have met their demises over the years. The stories involve everything from a fisherman buried in sand to a gust of wind carrying a kite flyer into the air and a mechanical breakdown causing a man to be smothered in his sleep. Every episode tells three stories of people who came to bad ends in unlikely ways. And after watching it for a while, you might get the creeping sensation that danger lurks everywhere. ... The idea for the show came from a strange little series of books that Miazga's producing partner discovered in the Monkey's Paw bookstore on Dundas St."
2. Genzlinger, Neil (2012-02-17). "Television Review: 'Curious & Unusual Deaths'. Spoiler Alert: You're Going to Die at the End". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "That was before I watched “Curious & Unusual Deaths,” a series that has its premiere Friday on Discovery Fit & Health. ... The salesman was struck down in midpitch on a cloudless Florida day. By the end of the segment we know that the phrase “bolt from the blue” isn’t just an expression, and that a Bible is apparently no protection against random death. The premiere also explores the departures of a scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project and a not-very-bright lawyer who worked on the 24th floor of a glass tower in Toronto. As if that weren’t enough for the easily unsettled, the show sprinkles each episode with factoids related to the deaths examined, just rolling them out there without explanation."
3. Moye, David (2012-02-16). "Death By Lava Lamp? New TV Show, 'Curious And Unusual Deaths,' Explains How It's Possible (Video)". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "A new series, "Curious And Unusual Deaths," which debuts February 17 on Discovery Fit & Health, attempts to explain the science behind these bizarre deaths with the help of experts and reenactments. The first episode deals with the strange death of Aidan Bray, a resident of Kent, Wash., who died in 2004 at the age of 24 because of an exploding lava lamp that left him covered in blue waxy goo with glass shards embedded in his heart. ... As for the reenactment of the lava lamp death, cleaning up the mess of the blue goo was not something anyone on the set was dying to do. ... Although the deaths featured on the series are strange, unusual and weird, Lamport hopes that audience members don't watch the show from a condescending "what an idiot" vantage point."
4. Stone, Suzanne R. (2011-10-23). "Ecologist to appear on episode of 'Curious and Unusual Deaths' on Discovery Channel". Aiken Standard. EBSCOhost 2W61808938355.
  The article noets: "The Savannah River Ecology Lab has shared its expertise with the Discovery Channel for an upcoming episode of its show "Curious and Unusual Deaths."SREL's outreach program head and University of Georgia professor emeritus Whit Gibbons traveled to Toronto for two days in late September to tape an interview for the program. The episode will focus on a decades-old incident in West Virginia, in which eight campers died after drinking from a keg of beer which proved to have a copperhead snake inside. ... "Curious and Unusual Deaths," a part of Discovery's lineup since 2009, airs on Discovery Channel Canada."
5. Pavey, Rob (2011-10-23). "Youngsters Get Head-Start on Whitetails". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "A local scientist who is also one of the nation's top authorities on snakes will be on the Discovery Channel show called Curious and Unusual Deaths. Whit Gibbons, ecologist emeritus and head of Savannah River Ecology Lab's outreach program, was invited to provide commentary about copperheads and snake venom for the show, which delved into a decades-old mystery involving the death of eight West Virginia men. The show explores the bizarre and unusual, and brings in experts in various professions to comment on odd or even unexplained deaths that have occurred. This episode will air in spring 2012."
6. Dugdale, John; Stewart, Helen; Dempster, Sarah (2010-08-01). "Choice". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The review notes: "Come die with me Curious And Unusual Deaths (Bio, 8pm) Using elaborate reconstructions to explore bizarre demises - Bible salesmen struck by bolts of dry lightning, scientists frazzled by miniature nuclear explosions, a businessman caught out by a fragile pane of glass - this new series's opening episode focuses on three deaths that occurred in the workplace. What follows is a surprisingly subdued affair, with sober scientific explanations."
7. Masterson, Lawrie (2010-05-30). "Best of Foxtel - What not to miss". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The review gives two stars and notes: "Macabre but fascinating, this series looks at deaths with that "what the . . .?" factor. These are some of the strangest passings recorded -- from a Bible salesman struck by lightning under a cloudless sky to the pet lover who fell into a cat bowl to a French tailor who tested an experimental glider off the Eiffel Tower."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Curious and Unusual Deaths to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenta Sawada

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

Made two appearances in the J3 League in 2019, has not played in the J3 or higher leagues since RossEvans19 (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. User:RossEvans19 talk 00:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every guideline. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hukhalatri

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

Sourced by a wiki type site and contains too many unsourced statements that could be disputed. "He was a truthful and spotless king, and a follower of Buddha." This appears to be about a person and a place. I don't feel this is ready for mainspace. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Ishigamori

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

Retired in 2020 after 3 appearances, unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. User:RossEvans19 talk 00:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails every guideline. Geschichte (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The War on Warriors

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. All sources are primarily about the author and most only briefly mention the book.मल्ल (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Military. मल्ल (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book topped the NYT non-fiction bestseller list [62]. Per WP:NBOOK, this in itself qualifies as a non-trivial published work about the book given that the bestseller list itself is notable, in addition to the fact that it is republished and reported on by other sources (e.g. [63] [64]). This article in the Washington Post qualifies as a second non-trivial published work about the book, and this op-ed in the New York Times is a third. I think those three sources are enough to meet WP:NBOOK criteria 1. There are also plenty of other sources that discuss ideas from the book in the context of Hegseth's confirmation, including [65] [66] [67] [68], and the book was directly referenced by Trump in announcing Hegseth as the nominee [69]. I think that's potentially enough to make a weak case for WP:NBOOK criteria 3 on the basis that the book played a significant role in a political movement/event (in this case, the right wing attacks on "DEI" and "wokeness" in the US military). MCE89 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wcquidditch. This book has been discussed many times since Hegseth's nomination, and as Wcquidditch says, it topped the NYT best-seller list. Toughpigs (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: I think you mean MCE89? Wcquidditch added the discussion to the deletion sorting lists. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:50, 16 February 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 speedy keep‎. Nominator is unsure that they are seeking a deletion. It's not clear on what they want so I'm closing this as a Speedy Keep. No penalty for another editor bringing this article to AFD with a coherent deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Regions Airline Association

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

Moving from PROD to AfD. Looks like not meeting NCORP but maybe some sources do exist NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Aviation, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe, Belgium, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' I am not fully in favor of deletion, as I suspect the page might be improved ( WP:HEY). --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:02, 15 February 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.

[1] ttps://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/districts/hyderabad-news/529/124066274

[1]