Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 31	February 02 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Frank Sumner Capen

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

Insufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. Sources only prove existence, not notability. Fails WP:NPROF according to this discussion on article talk page. Bgv. (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Education. Bgv. (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An odd case. He moved from being faculty at Colby to being principal of a high school in the late 19th century when sources were sparse. The high school later became a degree-granting university. However, just as notability is not inheritable, I don't see how it can retroactively promote to pass WP:NPROF#C6. I am not convinced, but I am happy to leave this one to others -- hence Abstain. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of clarification: Subject became principal of the New Paltz Normal School, and I'm not sure if it's completely appropriate to denote that as a high school. Normal schools were post-secondary institutions with abbreviated (1-2 year) programs to train school teachers, in a similar system as technical colleges. Most normal schools in the United States later became or were absorbed by state colleges (see examples in Normal schools in the United States). Does this make them "major academic institutions"? Likely not, but I also wouldn't group them into the same bucket as secondary school administrators. Bgv. (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, clarification accepted (I did not grow up in the US). Ldm1954 (talk) 06:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newspapers.com shows that there was coverage of why he was asked to resign, and also of his suicide and the manner of it. A newspaper report of his appointment to Colby University says that he was elected to the "chair of Natural Philosopy and Astronomy" - the article describes this as a "professor of physics", which seems a bit different, although a report of his resignation does say "professor of physics". I'm not sure about this one, and not sure I have the time to expand the article to assess whether he meets WP:GNG (or anything else). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who work in what we now call "physics" would have been called "natural philosophers" back in the day. Newton's magnum opus was The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, for example. The word physicist dates back at least to the early 1700s, but it did not take off until the mid-to-late 1800s. Add in the fact that academic titles can be stuffy and preserve archaic language, and it's not surprising that a professor of physics would hold a chair of "Natural Philosophy". XOR'easter (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:PROF is mostly geared to evaluating scholars and academics who are alive today. It's not all that illuminating one way or the other for a person who died in 1900. XOR'easter (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. XOReaster is perfectly correct, it is super difficult to gauge academic notability but clearly if someone has only taught and never published, all we have is whether they've led a major institution or whether they are generally notable. Someone with a long teaching and academic career has the possibility of eventually having a broad academic impact, but this is a short career situation. I decided to spend some time with the article to see what I could find, and there were some technical issues in the article which I have cleaned up with a couple of edits. However, having done so it now seems to me that although this person was important to the history of SUNY New Paltz, they don't seem generally notable enough (WP:GNG) to merit an independent article and don't seem to me to meet WP:NPROF either. Qflib (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we're judging by GNG, it has nothing to do with importance, merit, or scholarly accomplishments. GNG is purely about the existence of in-depth reliable independent sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, sorry if that wasn’t clear. Qflib (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the only in-depth independent sourcing we have is a contemporary newspaper account (or accounts) of his suicide, it's not enough. The genealogy book is definitely not in-depth enough to count for much, and I didn't find anything else better. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fontaine (singer)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC/WP:NBIO. Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2010. No significant coveraged located with various permutations of names and album names. Jfire (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Jfire (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, if she has recently signed with BMG Records. I have found only one article about her [1], apart from a few mentions in newspapers when she was at school (creating an ad in class, and an award for a recycling project, which names her mother), and a para in an article on battling inflation (she delivers for Instacart, and will cut out Starbucks iced coffee). I haven't found reviews of her albums, and she doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC with having a few songs played on individual episodes of TV series. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, France, California, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 2 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wedge Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I came to this page from Rob Marris, who is apparently the board director for the holding company of Wedge Group. I was going to copyedit the article, but then started looking for better sources and found no significant coverage outside local/industry news. Here is what I have found:

An article (archive link) in the Birmingham Post about a new plant built by the group. This is already cited in the article.
A very short Suffolk News article about a visit by Nick Timothy MP to an Acrow Galvanising plant. Acrow Galvanising is owned by Wedge Group.
A short article in the East Anglian Daily Times about Acrow Galvanising changing the livery for their vehicles.
A short Insider Media article which mentions Wedge Group in passing as a former employee was given a job at the CBI.
A short Scottish Business News article about "Scotland's largest [galvanising] bath" which was built by a company owned by Wedge Group.
An article in the Express & Star discussing the conversion of an old school building into the headquarters for Wedge Group.

There are a few other small articles elsewhere, but I believe all of the coverage I have found falls under WP:ORGTRIV, and is aimed at either local or business audiences (WP:AUD). Pink Bee (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Engineering. Pink Bee (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that technically this article has been nominated for deletion before, but the AfD tag was removed as no reason for deletion was given. Pink Bee (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd but no reason provided so it was an invalid PRODding.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep likely meets WP:NCORP. There is an in-depth article in Financial Times ([2]) and as "it is the largest galvanising company in the UK" and was founded in 19th century. I expect more coverage in pre-internet era publications. I also found more coverage in local publications: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Gheus (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Nice work finding that FT article. I don't think the article in The Times really counts as coverage of Wedge Group: it's just RICH MAN BACKS BREXIT, with WG mentioned in passing as what made him rich.

As I said before, the local coverage isn't worth very much. Per WP:AUD, however, I think the local coverage combined with the FT article is just enough (At least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary – you've found that). Pink Bee (talk) 22:46, 2 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.

Qing Campaign in Fergana

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

Quite the same case as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghaznavid conquest of Multan—totally WP:LLM'd [8]. However, I must say that some coverage exists and it's possibly not a hoax, but this topic can only be properly handled through WP:TNT. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, China, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TNT, unsalvageable "article" "written" by an AI chatbot. Java Hurricane 06:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:TNT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LLM hallucinations have no place in an encyclopedia. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 09:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The good news is that, at least, Beyond the Pass Economy, Ethnicity, and Empire in Qing Central Asia, 1759-1864 is a real book and James Millward is a real person. Since that's the principal English language source cited it means there might conceivably be a basis for an article like this one to exist. However, as pervasive LLM usage would mean manually checking every single reference to see whether it is supported by the book, as other citations look difficult to verify since they're written in Russian (if they exist) and as it's pretty much just a stub anyway, I find the WP:TNT argument compelling. Blow it up and start over. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. It's not realistic for us to try to check whether the information in the article is supported by the offline sources cited by the LLM. The sole online source doesn't include the word "Fergana" and is focused on a later period of Chinese history. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan de Leeuw

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine transfer announcement as well as this paywalled article. Even if the latter was SIGCOV (I'd appreciate if anyone could access it), we would need more coverage to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtails (band)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND. Going through the 6 sources, the first is their personal bandcamp, the second is an article I don't have access to but it seems connected to the band, the third is "foxtails interview", fourth is "new album out now", fifth is a review of one of their albums (no significant coverage about the band), and sixth is an interview about a new EP release. My external searches give me little more than what is here already. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their bandcamp was only used as a source for the pronouns of the band members, since some older interviews do not reflect the current pronouns used by the band members. The second source is an article from the Hartford Courant, a newspaper from Connecticut. This is not connected to the band in any way, nor are any of the other four sources. I suppose there is also a bit of a discrepancy about what we consider to be coverage of the band. I would think that coverage of an artist's works would be considered coverage of the artist since the purpose of most music publications is to talk about the music itself. Unless you are only including sources which talk about the band members' personal lives and disregarding sources about their music, which seems somewhat counter-intuitive for me. To my knowledge, there is not a specific minimum number of sources required to establish notability, but I thought five (not connected to the band) would be sufficient. If this is not the case, how many sources and/or what types of sources would have to be added for the article to not be deleted? Thanks. Ptarmica (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the artist's work is not coverage of the artist. Coverage of the artist's work is good if you wanted to have an article on the works' themselves, i.e. something like Home (Foxtails album), but it doesn't establish anything for the band if the band (as an entity) is never the subject of these sources. Utopes _{(talk /cont)} 07:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, coverage of their works is obviously about the band in the same way that coverage of an author's books, or an artist's works contribute to their notability. This is necessary for notability as interviews are excluded from notability considerations if they have no independent prose but can still be used in the article if from reliable sources so it's not as if there is no usable coverage of the band, imv Atlantic306 (talk)

Leaning towards delete or draftify - this may be WP:TOOSOON if they're an underground/only locally known band just starting to be written about in large music publications like BrooklynVegan. I see the members are LGBTQ and one of the members speaks Spanish, is there any coverage from LGBTQ media outlets or Spanish-language ones? Sarsenet (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghaznavid conquest of Multan

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

Full of WP:LLM generated hoax [9]. Not even single mention of this particular "conquest" in the article, only spun around irrelevant events (Ismaili revolt, sectarian conflicts and other Ghaznavid invasions). Either the creator has failed to give proper command to LLM or they don't even know what the topic is about. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. – Garuda ^Talk! 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:TNT if nothing else. This is unsalvageable. Java Hurricane 06:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TNT this garbage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D'Nika Romero

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG as to her college basketball playing and in general. Fails WP:NMODEL as to career as a model. No independent, third party references for modelling career. In this context, the publications in which her image appeared are not reliable sources for a modelling career. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sexuality and gender, Basketball, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG. This was the only thing approaching SIGCOV I found. Please ping me if more sources are found. JTtheOG (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find anything for this person. The Sports Reference stats aren't enough for an article and there's nothing else to be added. Oaktree b (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Gesi

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this Italian rugby union player to meet WP:GNG. Lots of passing mentions, interviews, match reports, squad lineups, etc. but nothing in-depth. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lumi (currency)

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

Fake and/or failed currency, does not meet GNG because only those who promote it write about it, most of the claims made about it are false. Polygnotus (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Lumi_(currency).

Creating a new currency is a very old scam, see Scrip.

What I think happened (this is a guess based on very limited information):

I think that Timothy Elisha McPherson Jr. or someone he knows created a new currency called LUMI before 2016 https://lumicurrency.org/about/

He, or someone he knows, had some banknotes printed in Canada around 2016.

They claim that Each issued LUMI is equivalent to USD 15.96, underwritten by 100kwh of solar energy and valued against gold-grains in a parity of 1-to-4, where one LUMI equals the market value of 4 grains of gold.

They then needed a way to get people to use this new currency, and the obvious way to achieve that was handing out free worthless LUMI. They called this the 6 Trillion Dollar Stimulus package (unclear how much that would be in LUMI).

Anyone can get some LUMI by signing up for an account, and if you are a business owner you can get what they claim to be the equivalent of 10k USD.

Problem is, you can't really spend this fake currency anywhere.

They went to a bunch of places trying to get a government to accept the currency as real.

Accompong is a village on the island of Jamaica. Some people claim Accompong, a village of less than 800 people, is sort-of sovereign and autonomous. The previous chief promoted LUMI. The current chief, Richard Currie, is opposed to LUMI.

The people behind LUMI went to Vanuatu and tried to get them to adopt this new currency. They did meet the deputy finance minister but I am not sure how succesful they were in their quest.

Basically no one registered on their website, and those that did were told they could not exchange their fake money for real money.

The Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong does not exist and the African Diaspora Central Bank is just some guy in Benin.

They claim The lumi is no longer used as the Accompong currency. It is now issued by the African Diaspora Central Bank since the Central Solar Reserve Bank was destituted by Colonel Richard Currie when he replaced Colonel Ferron Williams as the new elected Head of State for Accompong. but I have found no evidence that the Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong has ever existed, outside of McPherson's head, and solar energy production on Jamaica is very low.

Creating a fake bank is illegal in Jamaica. They also tried to set up a fake energy exchange called "Accompong Solar Energy Exchange" but I think that scam was not very succesful because it looks like it quickly shut down.

Polygnotus (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Economics, and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable enough for a separate article. If Timothy E. McPherson Jr. is notable (and I am not sure if he is), a paragraph about the pseudo-currency could be added and reframed as a possible variant of the redemption movement, based on two sources ([10],[11]). --Minoa (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE. Similar fringe ideas, like cryptocurrencies, the Yeti, Extraterrestrial life, and ancient languages, can be notable, if they have significant coverage in reliable sources, but we're not in the business of publishing ideas made up in a day. This is especially true with scams. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Non-notable scam presented as a legitimate currency. Should have been speedily deleted shortly after its creation. Yue🌙 08:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could be something about a fake currency if there was extensive sourcing about it. Nothing happened that caught media attention, hence the lack of sourcing. Just not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11. 🔥Jala peño🔥 contribs 09:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The currency is issued by African Diaspora Central Bank as a regional currency. The African Union has recognized the Diaspora as the sixth region. Leviathan1619 (talk) 13:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit (archived), it appears that the above editor may have been involved in making spammy or promotional edits: either way, such edits goes against Wikipedia's neutral point of view goal. --Minoa (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie Jervis

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

Draft:Holly Jervis by User:PerfidiousSnatch was rejected last May for failing to meet WP:NSINGER with not enough significant coverage. This article is from the same user (although the text was written first in a sandbox by User:SandraHarsesWilson, who resigned and vanished shortly after this unclear response from PerfidiousSnatch about who wrote the article text) under a different spelling of the article title, initially Hollie Michelle Jervis, and it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSINGER either. "a prominent figure in hun culture" seems to be overstating it, when the sources are about a recurring joke on Twitter.

The photo in the infobox also doesn't look much like the subject, even if she has been out of the public eye for 15 years. Belbury (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Belbury (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the creator's response to this AFD was to immediately retire from Wikipedia, I'll remove the photo they uploaded from the infobox. I can't find any evidence that Jervis looked like this in 2023, it may be another strange private joke. Belbury (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You clearly aren't aware of the effects of Shrove Jervis and the impact Hollie's had or you wouldn’t even consider nominating this. Out of the public eye for 15 years? Then why was she trending at no.8 on Twitter after performing in a bar in 2023. Tamsyn Acton (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)— Tamsyn Acton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ( Blocked sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz, see investigation)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trending on twitter isn't notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Citations are a mess, most are not in RS.. We're left with a reality tv appearance, thinly sourced in RS. I don't think that's enough to hang our notability. I don't find any kind of sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the citations are a mess. I actually put rather a lot of effort into formatting them correctly. PerfidiousSnatch (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, MBE? Really? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know why the MBE suffix was added, and have now removed it. PerfidiousSnatch (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any "serious" sources about her. The sources in the article are mainly fringe publications. She is mainly known for an embarrassing audition for X-Factor. (Which she failed.) Lamona (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassing in your view perhaps, but Jervis has many fans, and is the figurehead of a culture underrepresented in academic writing. PerfidiousSnatch (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There has been a great deal of controversy and disinformation surrounding Jervis (i.e., Shrove Jervis of 2022)^[1]. This article clarifies essential details about the songstress's life and career, in an age where such truth is more valuable than ever. PerfidiousSnatch (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz, see investigation)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSINGER.Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PerfidiousSnatch is blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 4 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 [12], [13] ~~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 [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] . And here are some urdu news papers references [21] [22] [23] [24] 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. [25] [26] [27] 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. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

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]

Fidelis Chibueze

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

The subject of this article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The article is written in a promotional tone and is definitely a soapbox. The subject is the founder of a non-notable platform and is a member of a non-notable council. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Kansas, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A non notable subject that is full of puff pieces as sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is widely known as the founder of Fixtops, an AI-powered... Yeah, that digs a big hole which the article utterly fails to climb out of. Searching finds no means by which WP:GNG can be met. XOR'easter (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - by now, everyone should know that we are not a social media platform for you to sell your version of AI. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources either fails WP:INDEPENDENT or a promotional puffery. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayobami Aranmolate Rasheed

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

The subject of this article does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, specifically WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article reads like a WP:SOAPBOX and contains promotional wording. Multiple sources in the article are about the surgery he performed on Tonto Dikeh. I've read most of the sources cited in the article, and they're all promotional. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Africa Magic Showcase" is some kind of YouTube channel, akin to the "pimple popping" video channels. It's not serious scholarship. It's soap and spam. Bearian (talk)
Delete: "He is a Fellow of the West African College of Surgeons and also a Fellow of the American Academy of Aesthetic Medicine" was the only paragraph that caught my attention, but then, it is hoax because the cited sources do not even say such. Fails WP:GNG overall. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Vanderwaalforces, I'm sorry, but that one paragraph was so bad and so badly sourced, as you indicated, that I removed it from the article. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies I'm telling you. If I decide to go deeper, I might find more hoax that this might just end up being a G3. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Vanderwaalforces, user is now CU-blocked. I don't think it's a hoax, I just think it's deceptive. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, thanks for tending to it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oil imperialism theories

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

There are no "oil imperialism theories". This page was created in 2003 (possibly in relation to the invasion of Iraq) and over the course of two decades, no reliable sources have been added to the article. There is nothing to indicate that the subject is notable. The article is pure WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. While I'm sure that someone somewhere has used the words "oil" and "imperialism" together, there is no coherent set of "oil imperialism theories" or academic literature on "oil imperialism". This is contrast to, say, [oil war] and [resource war], which have substantive literatures about them. Thenightaway (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much overlaps with the term Petro-aggression, but cannot find any evidence of the term "oil imperialism theory" being used outside of Wikipedia and a few random non notable Google hits. Likely WP:OR. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario de Miranda (bridge engineer)

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

No sources provided to link this name to any of the supposed achievements. Searches reveal a number of simimilarly named people but none who are bridge engineers. The original article was draftified some time ago and has been moved to mainpspace by its creator without providing any sources. A web site of his own company asserts that he is a Professor at the University of Venice but that is a self penned sources. It is likely that ths individual is notable as a Professor but this is not that article and cannot be extracted from the current version per WP:TNT. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My larger issue here is COI. Author worked extensively on Italian Wikipedia's article on it and is almost entirely written by them. Their COI is also declared on the itwiki's talk page (and hasn't been declared here).

This article also needs significant cleanup if it intends to remain here, but that can obviously be fixed if this article is able to pass GNG. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chew, I made the COI statement on the talk page and I modified the page by lightening the list of publications and inserting a reference for verification on each point. Everything written in the article is true and verifiable. The person who is the subject of the article is, in my opinion, encyclopedic and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Fedem (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external sources. In particular the international database of structures and several cards of this database. I have formatted according to the guidelines of English Wikipedia. I ask if the changes are sufficient to remove the deletion noticeFedem (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG or NPROF. The page is a mess and will need TNT but that is besides the point of notability, which is not established with the sources or with the achievements and memberships listed. JoelleJay (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here rises to automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-worthy sources, and we don't have them. An individual who was primarily responsible for designing the Great Belt Bridge, say (the first example listed) would certainly be notable, but it was designed by a consortium of three Scandinavian firms, and constructed by more consortia. The linked reference lists his firm as construction engineers for one span of the bridge but even setting aside the distinction between him and his firm that is not the sort of in-depth coverage that counts towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Eppstein, what you say is not true. Mario de Miranda designed the construction of the suspension deck of the Great Belt Bridge during its construction period from 1995 to 1997. Not the design of the bridge but of the hundreds of construction phases from the construction of the cables to the last segment of the suspension deck. This is documented in many publications that are in the references. He also designed several dozen long-span bridges in various countries around the world. Everything written in the article is true and documented. I think that the person who is the subject of the article is certainly notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Fedem (talk) 07:24, 4 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[35], master's thesis[36], and an article on the Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Thailand's website[37] 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]

Aarne Arvonen

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a Finnish supercentenarian was merged to List of supercentenarians by continent in 2018 as a result of this discussion. The page was recently restored by Wwew345t, along with many other articles on supercentarians that were merged or redirected (see, e.g., [38][39][40]). I'm starting another AfD to get a feel for the community's current consensus, as this article is one of many similar bios that were recently restored to mainspace. Notability is definitely borderline: although there are sources that discuss this person, I think it's pretty clear-cut case of WP:BIO1E, as all the sources focus exclusively on his age. I'm interested to get the community's input here to guide my decisions on the many similar articles remaining in the new pages queue. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Finland. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep he was not just the oldest living man in finland but also the last living veteran of the Finnish civil war that's two events so WP:BI01E doesn't apply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some source hutning could turn up a source or two covering his ww1 service Wwew345t (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that covdr his age and status as the last finnish civil war vet such https://yle.fi/a/3-5847448 Wwew345t (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He was famous in Finland for being one of the oldest men in Finnish history, the last living man born in the 19th century and the last living veteran of the Finnish Civil War. He is already listed at the list of supercentenaries but I think there is potential to write even more about him. Nonetheless, regardless of the outcome, he should be kept at the list of supercentenaries. JIP | Talk 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per his involvement in the Civil War, detailed in Sotahistoriallinen aikakauskirja 29 (pp. 213-224) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Per arguments against WP:BIO1E, I have to disagree, but I do have deletionist tendencies, so take my opinion with much more than a grain of salt. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 23:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maffian

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

This particular extended play (EP) fails WP:NALBUM and is not notable. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. The article's critical reception section is misleading to say the least. The OkayAfrica and P.M. News sources cited in the article are not reviews. I redirected the article to its parent article per criterion 6 of NALBUM, but User:MakeOverNow reverted my edit. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you think that Maffian didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but the mistake was made by the editor who published this article that didn't provide enough notability. The EP charted on US & UK Apple Music Album chart at #57 & #82 and peaked at number 2 on Nigeria Apple Music Album Top 100 and number 3 at TurnTable Top 100 Albums. [41][42]. Remember Boy Spyce (EP), or Soundman Vol. 2 didn't provide any chart or review to meet WP:NALBUM. MakeOverNow (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music Charts are considered WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts and cannot be used to establish notability. Although Turntable is a reliable chart, simply having an EP chart doesn't justify a separate article. The fact of the matter is that Maffian was not discussed in reliable sources or critically reviewed. I am not sure why you're comparing Maffian with those two other projects. For your info, both Soundman Vol.2 and Boy Spyce were critically reviewed. Show me multiple reliable sources that reviewed the EP and I will change my vote. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Response

AfDs for this article:

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

I meant to PROD it, but apparently it was nominated for deletion in 2005. Regardless, the only source that confirms this event existed at all was made by a partner organization. I couldn't find any other sources, not even a PR release, documenting it, so it should be deleted for not following the notability guidelines. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than some stuff from Getty Images that show this wasn't a hoax, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Cooman

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd Nomination. First AfD resulted in DELETE; strictly promotional. Page was re-created with supposed "new sources". However, all FOOTNOTES are primary and promotional. No "new" sources pass notability claim or RS requirement. Fanfare reference only lists BLP's self-generated biography. Cannot find any online listings for Living Music Journal or to any of BLP'S writing. Cannot find reference content for Choir and Organ to be used for RS. Entry in Oxford Music Online is merely BLP's personal biography contributed by subscribed user; as is with all biographies. Link to "Search for 'Carson Cooman' in The Oxford Dictionary of Music and the Oxford Companion to Music" renders nothing. No awards, no reviews, no major publications. 1st AfD was correct. Maineartists (talk) 17:48, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music and Bands and musicians. Maineartists (talk) 18:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Author) Keep An entry in OMO is a major third-party music encyclopedia covering the artist. If a major music encyclopedia covers a topic, that is the definition of being encyclopedic, and so we should cover it too. Chubbles (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT An entry in OMO is no longer relevant if and when that is the only claim for notability. Once again: OMO is user and subscriber generated now and merely copies from BLPs primary sources bios. There is nothing "covering the artist" in the OMO entry that is independent or would suggest third-party coverage to warrant an entire article on this BLP at WP. More toward the point, OMO does not list numerous well known composers listed at WP simply because a user / subscriber has yet to upload the information. OMO has quickly become a "Who's Who". If this is all that is allowing BLP to have an article at WP, the standards for even GNG have dropped considerably. As an article, there is not one content claim that meets any notability criteria. If the OMO is the only notable claim to fame and that is the only thing the BLP is notable for, then it becomes a circular argument. Where are the performances? Where are the recordings? Where are the reviews? Aside from OMO, where is any third-party independent coverage? Maineartists (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there documentation, here or elsewhere, that OMO has become a UGC site? This was intended to be an updated mirror of The New Grove, the definitive English-language encyclopedia of music, and if its inclusion policies have changed, this should be widely promulgated on music project pages, because Grove forms the backbone of a huge amount of the content of this project (in fact, WP:MET is a straight-on attempt to make sure everything in Grove has an entry here.) Certainly, if Cooman is in the paper Grove, that is definitively encyclopedic. Chubbles (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference in the article states: "The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd edition". This "printed" edition was published in 2001 in 29 volumes: [43]. This date far precedes any accomplishments or even career dates related to the BLP. No volume is referenced, nor page number. I am suspicious of the claim in general. I suspect it was added like this to pass notability claim after the first AfD result. In addition, absolutely no relevant information has been gleaned from this "encyclopedia" to back the content in this BLP article. At present, it would be the only source for the entire page. That is not enough to build an article or prove notability. Your argument is in defense regarding WP policy for one criteria and is not in anyway directly discussing the overwhelming problems regarding the article & BLP. Once again, the guidelines for criteria states: "may" qualify. There is a very definitive reasoning that this one criteria is not strong enough for notability, since the article was a result of delete and nothing has been added except 6 primary sources directly related to the BLP. You are arguing policy, not looking at the article and BLP and history overall. So the BLP is in the online version. There is absolutely nothing else online that can be found to back any claim as a source for content for an article here at WP. Even the first 4 lines of the online Grove biography is so personal that 1. The submitting editor either knows the BLP or 2. Took the information directly from a primary source related to the BLP. One still needs additional secondary sources to back any claim even stated within this "encyclopedia". Maineartists (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. I just realized: You re-created this article? What exactly were the new sources? Did you have access to the printed 2001 2nd edition version when you created this article? or the Choir and Organ issue pg 15-17? The other "sources" are primary; and the article you created is not notable. And looking at the History Summary mess, it is right back to where it was when it was first placed for AfD; with obvious COI adding primary images and reinstating primary sources and content, [44], [45], [46]. You recreated a deleted article based on what reasoning? The OMO entry??? Maineartists (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, although I had forgotten that when I first !voted; I have indicated my authorship in the !vote now. I used OMO, which I had access to in 2017 and no longer do; I worked under the reasonable presumption that OMO's articles are vetted by professional musicologists in the same way that the print version was. If that is not the case, there should be a centralized discussion about how to handle it (something akin to the discussion about Allmovie, though I hope the outcome is different). There's not necessarily anything untoward about a third party using a musician's own website as a source; that's, in fact, quite reasonable for uncontroversial facts about the musician, and I have seen Grove do that with some jazz musicians as well without thinking it askance in any way. The promo puff added by COI editors can and should be stripped (I haven't babysat this article very closely), but that doesn't change the fact that, with independent encyclopedic attention, this is an encyclopedic topic (which is why I re-created the article). Chubbles (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There's not necessarily anything untoward about a third party using a musician's own website as a source; that's, in fact, quite reasonable for uncontroversial facts about the musician." That is completely false when it comes to BLPs and WP policy. A BLP can put whatever they want in their own bios from date & place of birth to awards and premieres. WP will not allow even birth dates i.e. Roisin Conaty without a proper RS. The fact that (once again) the only RS - supposedly - for this particular BLP is the OMO, has absolutely nothing to do with encyclopedia attention warranting inclusion. Cooman has stated on his own personal websites and associated biographies that he has contributed to hundreds or recording projects and albums, written thousands of compositions, which have had numerous if not countless premieres world wide, and his (quote) "organ performances can be heard on a number of CD releases and more than 2,000 recordings available online" with "over 300 new compositions by more than 100 international composers have been written for him." My questions to you is: where? With such proficiency, with such an impressive and vast amount of music being produced all over the world and especially here in America, where is all the coverage? Where are the 2000 recordings? Where are the reviews? Where are all the sources? So yes, it is nonsensical to say that third parties can use a musician's own website as a source.

You keep skirting the issues at hand and creating another circular defense. The article with the OMO would not exist. That does not warrant notability. Notability criteria at Grove is completely different than WP presently. The discussion here is about the article on Carson Cooman; not about whether OMO entries should be automatically included at WP without question. Maineartists (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, placing all these citations under the guise of FOOTNOTES does not relieve them of their direct primary association. They are not being used in the correct manner as proposed in WP:FOOTNOTES since no reliable source has been establish for the initial content. Every single one of them need to be removed from the article. Leaving only the 4-line OMO for reference (unless another editor can access the site), and no one has yet to prove the printed 2001 edition; nor the Organ and Choir 2007 publication. I am going to do a hard scrub, leaving only the OMO for reference and then we can evaluate the article on its standing merits. Maineartists (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW. Since you re-created this article, where did you get the BLP's full name: Carson Pierce Cooman? I cannot find any independent secondary RS to back this claim. Curious. Maineartists (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem with the article being stripped of content added by COI editors, but promotional activity is (completely!) independent of notability, and so the only real issue I see here is whether there is some reason to believe that either the standards of OMO have deteriorated in general (and I'm not sure that you're in fact arguing this is the case) or that it has lapsed in its inclusion of this article specifically (which appears to be your primary issue). I believed that the artist's inclusion in the online successor to The New Grove was sufficient in itself to demonstrate encyclopedic worth, because it is an encyclopedia. It seems frankly silly on its face for us to have more stringent inclusion requirements than other encyclopedias do, and I defer to the expertise of published subject-matter experts in specific fields, including music - who, in this case, found Cooman worthy of note. I no longer have OMO available to me; in 2017 I had access to a major university library and now I do not, and so I can't see the article anymore, but I'm sure someone on the site can get the text. If it's based partly on information contained in Cooman's online biography, I see this as an issue if it regurgitates the composer's own self-praise or takes at face value outlandish statements about himself, but not, for instance, for the purposes of determining basic information like where he went to school or for compiling a list of recordings or compositions. Context matters in that case, and I think it is still safe to presume that OMO editors are sufficiently trained in source evaluation to vet the statements on the website, unless it is obvious that they have failed to do so. People lie about these things, I recognize, and it is incumbent upon OMO to check on that, but I don't have a credible implication that they didn't do so. (Again, without the article in front of me, I can't say for sure one way or the other, but I don't remember it being egregious insofar as I search my dim memory of life in 2017.) I do not recall exactly where I got his middle name came from, but it is attested elsewhere. Chubbles (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must be widely connected, because the subject and I have about 6 friends in common including a church organist who is an ex-boyfriend. The American Guild of Organists is a very small world. He's a composer in residence at Harvard Memorial Church, which may or may not count towards WP:PROF. As usual in these cases, no !vote. Bearian (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: it does not count toward WP:PROF. Unless there is an accredited title not associated with the subject found within a source detailed by the institution / organization, it is merely a self-promotional title. AGO and ex-boyfriends are not enough either. Maineartists (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT All 6 FOOTNOTES (which are used as references within the article) are direct primary RS. Regardless of this AfD, they must be removed along with its content. Leaving only 2 references, one that is not referenced and cannot be accessed for content entry unless one has the actual magazine edition from 2007, and the second: access to the printed OMO, since the online version only gives 4 sentences about early life and not career. It is also not referenced within the article. Continuous RS biographies are not enough for notability.

In addition, WP:MUSICBIO states: "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." The operative word here is may. "... the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials." There are no RS to be found. Also, fails WP:COMPOSER to meet criteria. Maineartists (talk) 14:59, 3 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 [47] source. This is [48] 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]

Youssef El Deeb

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

WP:BLP of a media entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for media figures. As always, founders of television channels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other things, with no evidence shown at all of any GNG-worthy coverage with him as its subject.
There's also been some conflict of interest editing in the past, as the article has been edited numerous times by "Yeldeeb", and was first created by an anonymous-IP WP:SPA with no other edit history at all besides this (and thus likely to have been either the subject himself, or an employee he paid to get him into Wikipedia). But of course, even people who do properly clear our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to create or control their articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Egypt, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTFB. If the person has an undisclosed financial or personal interest, or it's an autobiography, and it's not disclosed before an AfD, that is independent reason to delete. See a recent example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Wilborn. I just disclosed that my ex's friend has an article up for deletion, and I'm not !voting for that reason. Substantively, I don't see a lot of coverage about the subject, as opposed to his fee-based satellite-TV show. None of his other many projects have gone anywhere. This just looks like a LinkedIn profile, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kraľovič

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

Kraľovič only played 335 minutes of professional level before moving to lower leagues. In terms of secondary sources, I only found an interview on SME. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Churn and burn

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

"Churn and burn" is an expression in English, but the claim that it specifically refers to an anti-union tactic is dubious. The only reference in this article is a dead link to what appears to have been a minor news bit that was tangentially related at best. Google results reveal the phrase being used in many contexts with many meanings, but all references to it as a union-busting tactic seem to derive from this article, and even if some earlier reference could be found it would only be one of many uses of this stock expression. We don't have an article for "kill two birds with one stone" and we certainly don't describe it as concept in efficiency theory because one article used the expression. We should stop the cycle of citogenesis. -- LWG ^talk 15:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 1 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]

Otumfuo Educational Fund

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

Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Almost all the sources are either primary or press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources, and in my opinion, they are OK. However, if it were up to me, I would not call the article "Otumfuo Educational Fund" but rather "Otumfuo Foundation" which is actually the umbrella organization for funding educational and other projects. The "Otumfuo Foundation"/"Otumfuo Education Fund" has actually been in existence for 25 years so it is not what one would call a "fly by night operation". Will do a bit more work on older sources - if that is the issue presently under discussion. AbrewaAccraLady (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utterly fails WP:ORGCRIT and nothing to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - it's already discussed in the ruler's article, and it's not really independently notable. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 1 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. ✗plicit 23:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Henderson

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

As per WP:NRSNVNA. Fails Verifiability and i couldn’t find any coverage of him. Apart from a very old Washington post mentioning him, there is no recent coverage whatsoever. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not come close the meeting WP:GNG criteria. Lacks WP:RS citations or other sources to confirm notability. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seemingly contested on AFD talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This [49], but I'm not sure if it's even the same person. I don't see notability for wikipedia, this reads like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 1 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.

Wild Cookbook (Youtuber)

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

All sources are primary, seems non-notable, only a couple of trivial mentions on the internet in secondary sources DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Internet. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage at all about this person that I can find. Sources in the article are social media/video websites. Nothing at all for RS or any sort of media coverage. Nothing for notability and the lack of sourcing doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote at present, but wonder if we need to look in non-Latin script for references. His youtube channel has 9.7 million subscribers. I found some interviews with him, news about a restaurant opening, but only one in-depth reference: https://www.sundaytimes.lk/211226/plus/their-recipe-to-success-466461.html . Anyone who can search in his native language's script? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Oaktree b’s comments - social media is not an acceptable or reliable independent secondary source - fails WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - does not meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems way too promotional in nature. No significant coverage either.Plasticwonder (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article was made by a sock/meat puppeter. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westcroft, Staffordshire

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

Not a village or even a hamlet. Source 1 is a photograph of a farm. Source 2 is a map. Source 3 mentions the farm in Source 1. Source 4 mentions the name of the place. Source 5 doesn't even appear to mention it. It is practically an orphan having two links to main space (although one of these is also up for deletion). The article itself gives us its location and says it is primarily residential. And that's it. I am not seeing anything that gives a credible claim to notability, even with the latitude shown to places. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have strong feelings either way, but I'm not sure it's true to say that this is "not even a hamlet". We do have a problem with people creating articles for "places" that turn out to be just a farm and a word on an ordnance survey map, but in this case Westcroft has signs announcing it on entry (on Google Streetview), is a Westcroft Ward on Essington parish council, has a Westcroft Neighbourhood Watch, is the name of the bus stops. I'm not saying that these things necessarily indicate notability, only that this instance is not a case of somebody mistaking the name of a farm on a map and inventing an entire place from it. Joe D (t) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. But even if it is a hamlet, and the article just calls it a residential area, I'm still not seeing any claim to Notability. KJP1 (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essington: looking further at this and at Underhill, Staffordshire, I would merge them both into their parish, as is fairly common for unremarkable hamlets that will never have more than a couple of paragraphs to be said about them. Joe D (t) 13:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Essington#Essington Parish. Insufficient material to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once you all get to the early 19th century histories of Staffordshire and discover that there was a Hilton Park in Hilton township in the Cuttleston hundred, of which only Hilton Hall remains; which is, contrary to what Wikipedia says, the actual source of the name for Hilton Park services (and apparently all of the other things Bing Maps tells me are called Hilton Park something around there); and which encompassed West Croft Farm and Essington Manor, then you will know what the actual encyclopædic subject is here. Hilton Park and Hilton do not cover any of this, observe. We are missing this almost entirely, because we only cover 1 building. Uncle G (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- White, William (1834). "HILTON". History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Staffordshire. Sheffield: Robert Leader. p. 235.
- "H.C. Vernon, Hilton Park Estate, Wolverhampton". The reports of Andrew Thompson to the Inclosure Commissioners. Collections for a History of Staffordshire. Staffordshire Record Society. 1996. pp. 125–127.
- "West Croft Farm, Essington". Staffordshire Past Track.
- Useful for creating Hilton, or expanding Hilton Hall. But for this? KJP1 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - We all have tools that can edit the content and change the title of the page. And now we all know that the subject isn't a "residential area"; which was unresearched rubbish, but unresearched rubbish that can be edited. Nor is the farm the real subject. This is exactly the same situation as with Grove Avenue, London (AfD discussion) and Hanwell Park 15 years ago. That was fixed by editing and page moving, too. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, we've established that Westcroft is a residential area, albeit a small one about which there will likely never be more than a stub of encyclopedic content to be written – we would normally cover such areas within their parish articles. If you want to write an article about Hilton Park, it would be odd to start it from an article of which you do not intend to keep the title or any of the content. Even if you did create a Hilton Park article and mention Westcroft in it, it would be more use to readers who are looking for information about the settlement for the redirect to be to the Essington article. Joe D (t) 00:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read what is right in front of you. Even the nomination notes that the sources establish that this was a farm; and explains that the claim to being a "residential area" is unsupported by any actual sources, as it wouldn't be because it was not and still is not one; the farm (with its moat!) even being still in the middle of farmland on modern maps. The way to address this farm is to refactor it into the actual historical subject that encompassed the farm. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Joe D. I've added a sentence to the Essington article, so don't think this needs merging. There's nothing about the farm in this article except the source, but detail could be added in Essington. Hilton, including Hilton Park, is a separate parish that nowadays doesn't include Westcroft (if it ever did) and it seems simpler to create a new article for Hilton parish or Hilton Park, if thought notable, than repurpose this. Rupples (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - You actually don't agree if you call this a farm, as you just did. Steinsky is asserting that this is a "residential area", which is an unsourced and actually false claim by the article that we shouldn't be basing decisions upon, and called it a "hamlet" in a preceding rationale. Neither is true; and obviously neither is a basis for a good rationale. Actual history books have this as a farm, and go on about Hilton Park and all of the bits and pieces of the Hilton Park estate back in the early middle 19th century. It's mad to think that renaming and refactoring this, which anyone can do, is "simpler" than the whole effort of funnelling the work onto one of the few people with administrator tools. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essington. My source search lists this as a farm, and the index of the best source I found says "see Essington." However I do see that there is a physical sign announcing you are entering Westcroft, so I think this can possibly be saved. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Essington: non-notable area.Pam D 23:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's mad that there's this whole ruckus on the Administrators' Noticeboard about the article creator egregiously misinterpreting sources, when SRS 1996, p. 125 (a reprint of a report published in 1864, note) is right there, saying
These farms called Essington Manor and Westcroft comprise part of the Hilton Park estate, which is situate about 5 miles to the eastward of Wolverhampton and consists of upwards of 2,000 acres.
and White 1834, p. 235 is right there saying
HILTON, a township and prebend in the East Division of Cuttleston Hundred, 5 miles N.N.E. of Wolverhampton, is a tithe-free estate, consisting of three farms, and HILTON PARK, the beautiful seat of Henry Charles Edward Vernon Graham Esq.
and yet here people are still arguing on the basis that this is an "area" or a "hamlet" or somehow part of Essington, the adjacent township that the very same source White 1834, p. 249 directly contracts this assertion by saying
BUSHBURY, or Byshbury parish, comprises the two townships of Bushbury and Essington, the former in the Seisdon and the latter in the Cuttleston hundred.
and goes on at White 1834, p. 251 to say
ESSINGTON township, 4¼ miles N.N.E. of Wolverhampton, is a district of scattered houses, mostly occupied by colliers; but the coal mines here are now nearly exhausted. H. C. E. Vernon Graham, Esq. of Hilton park, is lord of the manor, and owner of most of the land.
. Indeed, the GeoHack in this very article leads almost directly to this 1880s map that shows Hilton, Bushbury, Essington, Hilton Park, and the Manor Farm and Westcroft Farm. Surely we should be better at this reading of sources lark than the article creator is! But collectively we're proving ourselves not to be. Uncle G (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's 2025, not 1834. I'm sure White was correct in describing Essington as a township of scattered houses in 1834. Meanwhile, Wikipedia needs to describe what the situation is in 2025. Essington is now a civil parish of more than just scattered houses, and as we established sometime earlier in this discussion, Westcroft is now an area in that parish.. Joe D (t) 07:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. It looks as though there still is a Westcroft Farm but I don't often see farms mentioned in village/parish articles. Could be, especially if it includes listed buildings - but a quick check of Historic England shows it doesn't. There is a special school, technically in Westcroft though accessed from Underhill. Rupples (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Clearly a separate settlement officially recognised by the council. Signs are only erected for such settlements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did anybody actually google this? Here's an example of houses for sale in Westcroft right now [50]. Results in the British Newspaper Archive show that it was a farm in the 19th century, and there was still a farm there in the 1940s, but there were already houses by then too, and more spacious, detached houses being built and sold there later in the 20th century and in this century. Definitely a named residential area and meets WP:GEOLAND. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Google has been searched, seems a bit remiss to question this. There's many houses for sale in many neighbourhoods, suburbs, informal areas on primelocation.com - not every single place gets its own Wikipedia page. GEOLAND gives a presumption of notability, but it's open to question here, and in any case, if after searching for sources little is found to write about the place that presumption is rebuttable. But if you've found WP:SIGCOV put your sources up for evaluation, otherwise Westcroft may be better merged/redirected into its parish or town as many UK places are and have been, some at AfD. Rupples (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I questioned it because the nominator wrote "Not a village or even a hamlet" and referred to sources in the article, with no mention of WP:BEFORE, and another editor wrote "My source search lists this as a farm". Discussing deletion on the basis that there is only a farm there, and that is not a legally recognised residential area, could lead to out-of-date assumptions. WP:GEOLAND says "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG." It doesn't say that populated places with legal recognition ("even if their population is very low") are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. WP:GEOLAND in fact says nothing at all about parishes (civil or ecclesiastical) - is there some other notability guideline for parishes and parts of parishes that editors advocating for merging are relying on? RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly isn’t a parish. We are considering it on a case by case basis. Do you have any sources that we can consider? Other than that some houses are for sale there? KJP1 (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Ordnance Survey Open Names database has Westcroft as a suburban area (SJ80 file download). It may need to pass the GNG, or it may have presumed notability under NPLACE - depends how that guideline is interpreted. Despite searches we haven't found a great deal to write about Westcroft. In effect, Westcroft's a kind of linear spillover of Wolverhampton's suburbs along the A460 road into the neighbouring parish of Essington, probably from the 1930s onwards - an early 20th century OS map shows Westcroft Farm and what may be one or two dwellings. Rupples (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some sources and information to the article. As I wrote in my Keep !vote above, it is a named residential area, a populated legally recognized place (with over 380 electors in 2022) and meets WP:GEOLAND. I don't believe that it also needs to meet WP:GNG (or why do we have notability guidelines?), and also doesn't need to meet unwritten policies or guidelines about parishes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen - Your additions are looking weak. Do you have any sigcov of this area that doesn’t Fail Verification? KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:GEOLAND may apply here and give a presumption that Westcroft merits an article, WP:N states it does not guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. It's because there's so little coverage that a merge/redirect to the parish has been suggested as a better way to introduce Westcroft to readers. Rupples (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Szego

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.

None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TarnishedPath nomination and extensive explanation. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, above discussion and online research that rendered 2 books (no reviews), a sacking, and a couple articles about George Szego. Nothing significant for a career spanning decades. Maineartists (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen editors cite multiple reviews in the past as sufficient reason for a keep (not that I'm accusing you of doing that here as you've obviously stated there are no reviews). I'm not sure that multiple book reviews, by itself, is a WP:NAUTHOR pass. I presume the editors are basing their keep vote based on criterion 3 which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series), but to me it would appear that when they are doing so that they are disregarding the first sentence of that criterion. TarnishedPath^talk 00:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found hundreds of search results for her in The Wikipedia Library, but the overwhelming majority of them were her bylines on articles she has written, and yes, there was SIGCOV about her, but it was not independent, because her byline was on those articles as well. Just because she was fired from her job doesn't automatically bestow notability on her, because that news cycle about her getting sacked has already come and gone. Maybe in the future, she might pass GNG for a BLP, but right now she does not, she's a BLP1E. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tony Lupton#Personal life per ATD and CHEAP. The reasoning of the delete-supporters is sound; the conclusion differs. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the suggested redirect. TarnishedPath^talk 04:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A before search brought up possible Italian scholarly articles on this church. No comment on notability yet though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I looked into both Google news and books. All of the references focus on either the castle that is nearby, or to the feast/commemoration of the Nativity of the Virgin. This is not an independent parish, but rather a chapel of the castle and an oratory, which is a unique type of house of worship for laypersons; I've visited a few in Italy and elsewhere. FWIW, I'm Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surviving 15th-century buildings of any kind are clearly notable. Most countries would heritage list them and they'd automatically pass WP:GEOFEAT. Sadly, Italy isn't very good at listing buildings, but the principle still stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Djflem (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Given a lack of sources, I'm not going to presume an old building is notable simply because it's old; if nobody cares enough to write about it, then it isn't notable. It does actually matter if the Italians don't care about their own buildings, but I would presume that what with the interest in Renaissance art, there ought to be English language sources if there were anything notable about it. And I'm having trouble finding sources beyond the municipal site, possibly because non-Italian sources don't use an Italian name. I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge, but at the moment I'd really expect to see some sourcing that makes an explicit claim to notability. Mangoe (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Pichal

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

This person is convicted of ~~accused of and on trial for~~ (revolting) charges but does not appear to be independently notable (I can't find any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage prior to his arrest) from what he's been charged with. Per WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E, we shouldn't have a biography of this individual~~, at least not until the trial has concluded with a verdict~~. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Crime, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator that he does not pass NCRIMINAL, but looking at the sourcing on the nl.wiki page nl:Sven Pichal, I do think he passes NBASIC as a TV personality, with articles about him in major publications. Haven't searched too much though, but he is not BLP1E. Also, from what I can tell he was convicted in December 2024. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, missed that in the sources. Can you share the coverage you saw that you think clears the WP:SIGCOV bar separate from the crime? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PARAKANYAA, thanks for referring to the NL page. The subject clearly passes GNG and WP:CRIMINAL. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how he meets the CRIMINAL requirements? (The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or [t]he motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. I don't think either applies. The question is whether there are enough sources outside the crime to warrant a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried a .be websearch for news on this person before the trial, there isn't any. News is about the incident at work or about the trial, he was sprayed with urine at one point... I don't consider much of this terribly notable. The lack of any sourcing before the incident shows this isn't a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least 1'740 records according to Google https://www.google.com/search?q=Sven+Pichal+site%3A.be&sca_esv=f94ce9e8bf588227&hl=en&sxsrf=AHTn8zpQsmp7KIZ0i2jgyWuujlzJL5Fh9A%3A1737921576789&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A2022&tbm=

He had a daily radioshow where he was the main person, he was also the chairman of "het Roze huis" and the spokesperson of "Wel Jong Niet Hetero", and made news items. He even appeared on a music album "de Sinterklaas Zingt" (https://open.spotify.com/track/3VAay1Zh4hy3LdGttUumoj) where celeberties sang songs about saint Nicolas. KommuSoft (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He doesn't appear to have been an on-air personality, so not well known by the public in Belgium. He worked behind the scenes. I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having to rely on Google translate, but I don't find sources about him as a TV personality prior to being arrested for crimes. And the articles about the crimes do not go into much detail about him. That there is an article in NL wiki is not a reason to have an article in EN wiki - each separate language wiki has its own policies for inclusion, and that is how it should be. Lamona (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven B. Haas

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

Per IP request: I have nominated this article for deletion as the subject appears to fail to meet the criteria for inclusion; there is minimal coverage in third party reliable independent sources. He has appeared as a talking head or been referenced as an authority but is not himself the subject of interest. He seems to have been listed as being good at his profession - many people are, but this doesn't make them encyclopaedia material. 109.76.178.90 UtherSRG (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject has invented several major medical techniques and devices and has been well covered in news media (meets GNG and, with his inventions and innovations, notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you clarify which sources lead the subject to meet the GNG? A paragraph in the NYT that doesn't focus on Haas but uses him as a source doesn't cut it. Which reliable sources support your claim that Haas' techniques and devices are major or satisfy the notability criteria? 109.76.178.90 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Subject obviously does not meet GNG. 1, 11: HSS, not independent N. 2, 3. Justia, primary/non-independent N. 4, 6, 10. Personal profile on a doctor site or promo, not independent N. 5. PubMed search results, primary/non-independent N. 7. Wedding announcement, not independent N. 8, 9. Passing mentions in local news about high school achievements, fails SIGCOV and YOUNGATH N. 12–14. Quotes in news story, almost zero secondary coverage N.
Holding patents is explicitly disregarded for notability.
However, he does have a substantial number of papers; I would need to gauge his relative impact in comparison to the average research orthopedist to assess NPROF C1. I don't think a "named chair" for a non-university institution is sufficient for C5.
The article is also blatant COI, likely by his relative. JoelleJay (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional. There are no independent sources, just re-publications of a blurb that he probably provided. The entire "early life" section is un-supported by the sources cited. I concede that he has published or co-published articles in this field that have been cited. If there were major awards or academic positions I suppose he could qualify under NACADEMIC. But I don't find evidence of that. Lamona (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 1977 Ontario general election by riding

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

This is an overly and unnecessarily detailed WP:CONTENTFORK of 1977 Ontario general election, duplicating the results exactly but adding a mostly non-Wikilinked group of names. As a result, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by being WP:NOTDATABASE. A merge/redirect is unnecessary since the information (sans candidate names) is already substantially presented at the election page and the title is unlikely to be a search term. I am nominating a group of similar by-riding Ontario provincial election result pages under the same rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "detailed" riding-by-riding election results which list all the candidates names (which the main pages does not do) are a useful reference. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address the WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:NOTDATABASE problems addressed in the nomination. Wikipedia is not a database of every candidate in every election. The articles for the elections themselves provide excellent encyclopedic treatments that provide sufficient detail. Users needing more can dig into the primary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging with parent articles solves the content fork issue. The point is that for people interested in elections having a list of candidates is useful and is also a common feature of election articles in Wikipedia. Not having a list of who actually ran would be a glaring omission. Would you even think of removing candidate names from say 2010 New York State Senate election? What about 1929 Chicago aldermanic election? Or 1907 Liverpool City Council election? Wellington Bay (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "Users needing more can dig into the primary sources" - that's fine if they have Lexis-Nexus access. Otherwise, that information is unavailable on the web. Wellington Bay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  In response to the WP:WHATABOUTX argument, I'm not proposing to delete any election pages, and issues with the content of those pages can be dealt with there. And by arguing Otherwise, that information is unavailable on the web, you've reiterated my own point that this article is functioning as a database -- something Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, what will be next? Articles for votes at polling stations? GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacious argument. Listing the actual names of candidates is a reasonable expectation in an article on an election. Poll-by-poll results are not. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The nominated articles are not the main articles on the elections. That would be 1977 Ontario general election etc., and no one is proposing to delete those. I am proposing to delete separate pages that are functioning as databases of candidates and results. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - So then merge the articles so that the main articles include candidate names (as they did previously before one editor added new tables without names). Wellington Bay (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Theres already an similar (but not completely the same) ongoing discussion that's taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the 2023 Alberta general election, that people should be aware of. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge (but tidy up) - Candidates of the 2024 United Kingdom general election by constituency provides a useful template for presentation, given that vote figures in the main articles have been moved to more easily readable and sortable statistical tables as well as being shown in the articles for the individual constituencies.Raellerby (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noting my previous comment on the other similar conversation. I think Ontario (in regards to other cnd provinces), is the only one which would qualify for stand alone articles of election results due to article size considerations of not having them (over 100-rows of electoral districts, with candidate names and vote results). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the question before us is not whether the information is useful or can't easily be found elsewhere, but whether the topics meet our inclusion guidelines, specifically WP:GNG and WP:NOTDATABASE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Subnational elections are a big deal, especially in federal entities, such as Canada. I think having articles like this are important to the coverage of these elections. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't address GNG and WP:NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear GNG fail, and the info here is already contained in other articles.

Noah ^💬 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. There is no compelling reason to keep candidate names off of Wikipedia. If consensus is to delete, I hope that this useful information can be preserved somewhere without too much trouble. Maybe move to draft so it can be copied to another wiki? Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDATABASE. Most stuff already covered in the main election articles. Procyon117 (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Most stuff" with the crucial exception of candidate names. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think this level of granularity for a 40 yr old election is needed. This isn't the election of JFK, it was the fourth? term for a premier that was running out of steam at that point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this AFD isn't just about the 1977 election, but more broadly about whether or not these types of articles (riding by riding breakdowns) should exist for Ontario general elections. The popularity or prestige of the premier at the time isn't relevant. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  A detailed breakdown of an important election could be helpful in the overall analysis. Short of that, it's just a collection of numbers in a chart. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to further this conversation forever, but they are not "just a collection of numbers in a chart." They - without merging into their parent articles - are the only instance of riding-by-riding election results (with candidate names) for Ontario provincial elections. Which in my opinion clearly meet WP:GNG for inclusion (at least in recent occurrences, and if not all the way back to 1977). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"They - without merging into their parent articles - are the only instance of riding-by-riding election results (with candidate names) for Ontario provincial elections." That, like Wellington Bay's argument above, basically admits that this page is serving as a database of primary source data and thus fails WP:NOTDATABASE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it admits that the page is a useful resource with information that is normally carried in election pages for other jurisdictions. That non-Canadians may not find it interesting doesn't mean it doesn't have value. If you tried to remove candidate names from pages of US state elections or UK elections you'd find a similar push back. WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't justify deletion. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I didn't like it or that it's not interesting, and whether or not I am Canadian would not seem to have any relevance. I said Wikipedia's purpose is not to be a repository of data, and two participants in that discussion have offered the argument that we should keep this particular repository of data because it apparently exists in no other accessible place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information should really be in the main article, but then it would be too big. I don't see the issue here - though the referencing and articles can certainly be improved. Nfitz (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main articles. The results by district are content that a proper Wikipedia article about an election should contain, either in the main article itself or in a spinoff like this — though I'm not really seeing hugely compelling size issues in any of these cases that would require the results to be spun off to their own subpages. The main articles would obviously be longer, but not so long as to be unreadable, and some of the size issues could be mitigated by editing the pages anyway since there would be some content in the main articles that could then be removed or edited on grounds of duplicating the results table. But listing the district-level results is very much expected in an election article, and is done all the time in election articles in other jurisdictions as well. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of law enforcement agencies on Long Island

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

Also nominating:

These articles contain duplicated information from sections of List of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). It’s repetitive and unnecessary. Law enforcement in Westchester County and Law enforcement in New York City should also be deleted for the same reason. Any missing paragraph summaries can be copied from these articles to the state article or to Law enforcement in New York (state). - Joeal532 talk 20:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting list for the following topic: Organizations.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Lists, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Westchester and Long Island, keep NYC The first two are just items that can be noted on the county articles very easily, but the NYC article has to deal with numerous items just because of the complexity of the NYPD and other federal and state agencies and is a fine article in its current state. Nate • (chatter) 21:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (leaning) — I’m definitely leaning delete, but I would second Nate in that NYC should be kept. WP:NLIST is actually quite forward in stating that “list of…” (and even “list of X of Y” as these articles are) should be be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I agree that there is some redundancy with these sorts of articles, but they can be handy. Regardless, the law enforcement side of Wikipedia is a personal project of mine, and while I agree that Westchester and Long Island are getting a bit redundant, etc, I do, however, feel that NYC, as the most populous city of the United States, and its large number of LEAs and LEOs (and a significant number of unique LEAs, at that) deserves to have his own list, even in the face of list of law enforcement agencies in New York (state). I say I am only 'leaning' delete, because if I can justify the existence of the NYC article, I’m assuming someone can justify Westchester/LI, and I’d be open to hearing their argument(s).
MWFwiki (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but keep the NYC article as per the discussion thread. I'm surprised by the number of red links. Bearian (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Joeal532 this AFD is not properly formatted as a bundled nomination and can't be closed as one. Please review WP:AFD for instructions multiple nominations and format this appropriately. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contains duplicate content. But keep the NYC article. Drushrush (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deletion does not solve the problem of duplicated content or an ugly article. A better solution is to rewrite the articles so that the content is county specific and the National and State level agencies are listed at the top level of the hierarchy, only, with merely a reference to there being a higher geographic level of agencies. In other instances where I have noticed duplicate articles about law enforcement in a county, the articles about the law enforcement agencies in that county have been merged into the geographic articles of where they operate. If these articles are not going to be kept, then I would suggest a Merge (or at least a redirect) of the Long Island article into the article about Long Island, where there is a section already. Also Merge (or redirect) the Westchester County into Westchester County, where there is already a section, too. Like others have also asked, I ask to Keep the New York City article separate, as it is a bit large to merge back into the New York City section on public safety, and other subarticles exist on related topics also exist, for that very large article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cameron Dewe. The NY state article is monstrously sized already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cameron Dewe. Thriley (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a meaningful list of the local law enforcement agencies as a standalone. Agnostic about splitting off New York City agencies and don't get me started on the question of whether or not Brooklyn and Queens are part of Long Island. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cameron Dewe's arguments are quite valid. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Underhill, Staffordshire

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

Three of this article's five sources appear to Fail Verification, in that they don't reference the place at all. Which leaves a map, and a bus timetable. I can't see that these give this very unremarkable housing estate any Notability. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scotlands Estate. Delete. I can find no evidence of "Underhill" being used to refer to a place in Essington parish, as claimed in the article. But it looks like it is used in the media as a synonym for Scotlands Estate in the immediately adjacent area of Wolverhampton, e.g. [51][52][53] Joe D (t) 13:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC) (Updated 14:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC) per Rupples's comment)[reply]
Comment. Not seeing much point in merging this. Scotlands Estate and Scotlands appear to be duplicates, this article's title is misleading - it ought to be Underhill, Wolverhampton and the sources don't support the content. However, Underhill should be mentioned somewhere and a redirect made from its accurate title. More of a 'start again' exercise. Rupples (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a place any more, and when it was, it was Underhill farm, Cannock Road, Wolverhampton. This isn't some enormous historical place that we've entirely missed, as is Hilton Park; a vast sprawling estate to the north covering 4,650 acres (1,880 ha) in the 1860s, clearly shown on the old maps, that is also in history books, with nary a mention in Wikipedia all these years (c.f. Westcroft, Staffordshire (AfD discussion)). This is a farm whose sole record seems to be mentions as a farmer's address in pig breeding journals. The actual population centre, a kilometre and a bit away from the farm, was Bushbury, which we already have. Ironically, the first source in the article is actually about Bushbury, and this content is falsely sourced, there being no claim to any place called Underhill in the source (which, ironically, has information about Hilton Park on pages 235, 251, 488, and 666). I agree with Rupples. There's nothing that this can be corrected into that we don't already have, and this article is plain false. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aer Lingus Flight 328

AfDs for this article:

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

I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the previous deletion discussion. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT, no sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree with Rosbif73. This article fails Wikipedia's general notability guideline. UdexTG^{[talk page]} 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Suggest immediate Rename to Plane lands in barley field~~ or Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV. Serial (speculates here) 14:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ : Aircraft iced over, nothing terribly notable. No loss of life other than the fireman, no changes in legislation or aircraft design as a result of the accident. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you voting to keep or delete the article? Your comment seems kind of contradictory. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, clicked on the wrong button. Oaktree b (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not a notable event, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Short_360#Accidents_and_incidents or Aer_Lingus#Accidents_and_incidents (both of which are WP:AIRCRASH-SECTIONs which contain largely the same text). As WP:ATD-R. Or, failing that, simply delete (per the outcome of the previous AfD and WP:NEVENT.) Otherwise, in all honesty, the event here barely meets the WP:PLANECRASH criteria for "when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about [..] airlines and aircraft type articles". Not to mention the criteria for a standalone article.... Guliolopez (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to any of the two lists of accidents suggested by Guliolopez, as this accident is WP:ROUTINE. --Викидим (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I would say that some of the secondary coverage found is somewhat weak regarding in-depth coverage but I think that they at least provide significant and continued coverage of the event beyond 1986. There is some evidence of lasting effects with Aer Lingus reportedly implementing the recommendations cast by the AAIB.^[2] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were two (very minor) flurries of news: one immediately after the accident, one upon completion of investigation. The only coverage above the local level appears to be similar to press releases (cf. RTE). Викидим (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jervisgate: How an X Factor auditionee is at the centre of a Gay Twitter civil war
^
- Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
- Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- "Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
- "Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
- Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
- Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

Delete and possibly WP:SALT per WP:NOTNEWS, the sources above are from like 30 years old and above thus failing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and has no WP:LASTING effect, 1 injuries does not help either. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NTEMP, if there was contemporary significant coverage, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Besides, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE does not give a minimum amount of duration for a subject to pass WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and two years is already more than enough to establish such notability. It's unreasonable to expect a topic to receive ongoing coverage for more than 30 years. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS,

In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Even when citing recent news articles as sources, ensure the Wikipedia articles themselves are not:
Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. However, our sister projects Wikisource and Wikinews do exactly that, and are intended to be primary sources. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information.

News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage (see WP:ROUTINE for more on this with regard to routine events). Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Who's who. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.)

Celebrity gossip and diaries. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest.

Uptime tracking. Services go down all the time. Readers are not expected to check Wikipedia articles to verify service outages. For web services, readers have ample automatic options for that purpose. For meatspace services, readers should be reaching out to the people who manage the service. Accordingly, editors should not manually edit service status updates into articles as if the articles are used for that purpose. Major outages may be notable on a case-by-case basis, especially when they have a notable cause, but the vast majority of outages simply are not notable.

ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you trying to make? Most of the sources are not routine nor "first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This was a rough landing rather than a crash and no-one had serious injuries, just scratches and bruises (a fireman crashed while driving to the scene, not part of the aircraft event itself). Not significant enough to warrant entry in any encyclopaedia that takes itself seriously.

“

The aircraft was relatively undamaged. – Assessment by the article itself!

”

The writing is very poor and of insufficient standard, suggesting that the broken English is a second language. Spideog (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum/clarification: While the article says in the lead "One serious injury was reported from a fireman", this injury occurred while the fireman was driving to the scene. Spideog (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just note that the aircraft was declared a hull loss since the left wing detached from the fuselage. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions no hull loss or wing detachment but states, "the aircraft was relatively undamaged." The supporting citation is a report by the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives, which states that "the aircraft was relatively undamaged". Spideog (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know where the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives got its sources since:

The Leicester Mercury states that the aircraft crashed in a ploughed field, and came to rest with one wing ripped off and the other badly mauled in trees on the edge of the Castle Donington race circuit.
The Long Eaton Advertiser states that The aircraft sustained damage to the undercarriage, nose, wings and propellers...
And more specifically, the Aviation Safety Network precises that the aircraft was destroyed; written off.

In this case, I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable since the images of the wreckage clearly show the wing detached and more importantly, the sources seem to verify that information, hence its claim that the aircraft was "relatively undamaged" seems to be completely untrue. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was written off. The accident made Flight 328 the second hull-loss accident of a Shorts 360, after the 1985 CAAC accident. The Shorts 360 had a total of 100 fatalities, and 55 occurrences in the ASN database. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Eaton Advertiser states that "The aircraft sustained damage" but does not specify either scratched paint or destroyed aircraft, so that does not help us.

The Aviation Safety Network is not an official institution but is compiled by a self-described "user community", so that source carries inconclusive weight.

The Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives in Geneva is, on the other hand, the work of an authoritative long-standing aircraft accidents professional and states the aircraft was "relatively undamaged".

You say "I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable" but that is a personal opinion, as is your dismissive assessment of the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives.

But this is a sideshow conversation relative to the identifiable policy considerations in support of deletion argued above. Spideog (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say BAAA was unreliable, I only stated that In this case, I wouldn't consider BAAA to be reliable. For the most part, the Aviation Safety Network isn't user-generated. It is only user generated if the entry itself states that one can edit the entry directly, and there is a long-standing consensus that it is reliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I verified the BAAA source and it states that The cockpit and passenger cabin were relatively undamaged and there was no fire. This is why one should not rely on content from a Wikipedia article when making an argument. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above or redirect to Shorts 360#Accidents and incidents – The accident itself fails the notability for events. While the accident resulted in a hull loss, the second of that aircraft type after an accident in 1985, it still fails Wikipedia:GNG. There is a good reason to why this article was nominated for deletion, as per what Iridescent said, I've declined a WP:G4 request on this—it can't be considered substantially identical to the page deleted in 2019—but the arguments from the 2019 deletion discussion still apply. There's nothing obvious to suggest that this is a viable Wikipedia topic. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 15:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A search of the British Newspaper Archive - I can't access the articles - shows continuing coverage of the incident over two years later (Leicester Mercury, 21 January 1988, about the recommendation to change the airframe to prevent ice buildup) along with continuing coverage throughout the weeks after the incident and continued mentions later in time. Also led to airframe-related safety changes. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the delete !votes are mistaken. This clearly passes WP:GNG - there's significant coverage of this incident in a Singapore newspaper in 1986 that is currently in the article. While everyone survived and the plane was just a Short 360, it was still clearly worthy of international press. Furthermore, the accident continued to be covered locally for weeks and was mentioned years later as shown by the British Newspaper Archive, so the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE is easily met. Since wasn't in the news for just a few cycle so isn't WP:NOTNEWS and passes the WP:NEVENT criteria. It also clearly had WP:LASTING impacts on the design of the airframe. WP:PLANECRASH specifically suggests it is not to be used in AfDs and is met anyways since this was? may have been? a hull loss and in any case resulted in changes to the airframe and icing safety, and WP:ROUTINE is for run of the mill stories which this isn't. None of the arguments for deletion actually work here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per SportingFlyer. According to the British Newspaper Archives, there is continuing newspaper mentions of the accident. There are also two sources in the Google News Archive and at least 10 sources in Newspapers.com, which all add to the notability of the article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 12:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheNuggeteer, you might usefully visit the article's talk page and answer some of the points raised there? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will fix. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. See the article's Talk page. There appear to be more sources out there than have been added to the article, and despite what's in the body of the article, it appears the crash actually was significant. Aviationwikiflight might or might not get around to adding them to the article. I've added an RTÉ News report which aired when the accident investigation report was released, which included video of the aftermath of the crash, showing substantial damage - one wing appears to have been broken off, and both are damaged, as is the fuselage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article definitely needs improvement and isn't a reliable source for gauging the noteworthiness of the crash. The RTÉ News report on the crash that Bastun referenced clearly shows that it was a significant incident and mentions that it "advanced knowledge of de-icing equipment in the industry". Cashew.wheel (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a classic example of WP:NOTNEWS. The coverage was basically in February 1986, with few follow-up news stories after the investigative report was released in 1988. Everyone lived, most with minor injuries. I don't oppose a redirect. I have no connection that I'm aware with any of the people involved, but its remotely possible. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just not true - NOTNEWS is for routine news stories, this was even mentioned on its ten year anniversary in a Scottish newspaper (1 February 1996, Aberdeen Press and Journal), 1994 article in the Derbyshire paper, 1997 mention in an Irish paper, 2002 mention in the Irish Indepednent... this was clearly not just a story for one news cycle. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is yet to be reached on what the outcome of this discussion should be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can produce significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Otherwise this is a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation

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

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [54] and [55] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing stance to Strong Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Right now, participants' opinion is divided. If the only problem is NPOV, that can be corrected through editing. The question is whether or not this subject is notable as demonstrated by sources so both those editors seeking to Keep and those advocating Deletion should be focusing on that aspect and not on whether the current content is appropriate for the project.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an undoubtedly notable Iranian gov-backed org. However, I would reiterate that certain phrasings in the article might not meet WP:NPOV and should be fixed. That doesn't necessitate deletion though. Eelipe (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. Has no place on Wikipedia. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The entire premise of the AfD is extremely problematic. "The fact a subject is not neutrally presented is not a valid reason for deletion. The solution for lack of neutrality is to fix the article, not delete it." - WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing all the sources, it's clear they do not support notability under either WP:GNG. The WP:SIGCOV of the subject is in unreliable sources. AgusTates (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article required significant improvements, including proper sourcing, neutral tone, and the removal of unsupported claims, all of which I have addressed. The subject is notable, and the article now meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliability. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the article is partially biased. AgusTates (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid reason for deletion. See WP:ITSNOTNEUTRAL. Eelipe (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sourcing still needs, at minimum, to be clarified. All of the sources are in Persian, but none of the citations identify the sources being used, except for one citation to the society's own website. I just deleted a Waze map showing the location of the society's office from the external links, per WP:ELNO #15. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is already an entry Society for the Defense of Palestine, and it is neither neutral, it is very promotional and not at all transparent, maintains a lot of false information and not supported by reliable sources. Promise provocative actions. --190.219.102.29 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Society for the Defense of Palestine is clearly a different organization, so that has no relevance for this discussion. The IP user 190.219... has no other edits apart from 3 other Middle East-related AfD votes within a short time-span. --Soman (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, IPs can't participate in consensus forming discussions covered by WP:ARBECR. They are only permitted to post edit requests on article talk pages. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are not a soapbox, or social media platform, or propaganda ministry for the government of Iran, which is coterminous with its media. The only countries with worse media than India are North Korea, Iran, and Russia. At least India'a media can be used to verify the existence of a village. Iranian media and government are one entity; they publish incorrect information on gas stations and nursing homes as if they're villages. Continuing to allow countries who would ban us, from pushing us around, is detrimental to the Wikimedia Foundation. This article is not just biased, but harmful to us. Bearian (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that bias on Wikipedia can be fixed? This isn't a valid argument against. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor (comics)

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

Minor character from French Tintin comic book series. Nothing here suggests WP:GNG is met. Pure plot summary and list of appearances. Fr wiki article is no better; my BEFORE failed to find anything that goes beyond a plot summary. Per WP:ATD-R, we can redirect this to List of The Adventures of Tintin characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin characters per nom. No real SIGCOV I could find either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pokelego999. No real WP:SIGCOV, but there is a decent redirect target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bassam Imadi

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

can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Fails our general notability guideline as well as our our subject-specific guideline --AgusTates (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What is wrong with the existing sources (two of which are secondary and not affiliated with the subject)? I also found [56]. I don't see any legitimate rationale for deletion. — Anonymous 03:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Bilateral relations, Syria, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I offer no opinion with regard to the merits of the article itself or whether it meets the GNG, but I did want to note that the nominator linked to NWEB as the "subject-specific guideline" this article fails. I don't think NWEB is applicable to a biographical article on a former Syrian ambassador that does not discuss web content at all. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the points above, I've added a couple of sources. Neither of them have Mohammad Bassam Imadi as their central focus, but both contrain information we can use, and one article is pretty long with more context. /Julle (talk) 23:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons similar to what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaled al-Ayoubi. The reliable sources cover him in detail over several months in 2011 and 2012. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, because all three required elements haven't been satisfied, in the positive: (1) reliable sources cover the person in several contexts; (2) as member of the opposition council, is unlikely "to remain, a low-profile individual"; and (3) the individual's role was substantial and well documented. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Abdul Karim. FWIW, I have no axe to grind in the Syrian civil war. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do think he's a clear WP:BLP1E - he's only discussed in articles because he defected, being a member of the opposition council seems to be akin to joining political party, and it was routine news that he defected. A BEFORE search only brings up mentions and the best article, the Swedish one after the fact, is an interview. I don't think there's enough here to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NPROF. --190.219.102.29 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF seems completely unrelated? /Julle (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bearian. Nom sees not to have grasped as yet the need for BEFORE. Ingratis (talk) 09:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Adventures of Tintin locations

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

Poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Fraternities and sororities, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternities and sororities?? Why? -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have The Adventures of Tintin#Settings and a couple of articles on fictional locations in the series such as Syldavia and Borduria. Purely cataloguing which locations appear in which stories as is done here doesn't seem helpful, however. It might be possible to write a stand-alone article about how locations are used in the series based on sources analysing that subject, but the bulk of this article is basically just a bunch of WP:RAWDATA. TompaDompa (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. Goustien (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is simply a mass of WP:RAWDATA without any reference to how these places tie into the Tintin series, and the way they are depicted. TH1980 (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: covered as a set in https://www.cnrseditions.fr/catalogue/geographie-territoires/les-geographies-de-tintin/; with certain regions also addressed as a set in various sources, including https://orientxxi.info/lu-vu-entendu/l-arabie-de-tintin,1628 https://www.topito.com/top-pays-imaginaires-tintin All the countries are listed in Géopolitique. Atlas des 160 lieux stratégiques du monde. (2018). Editions Ellipses There are plenty of other sources on the topic in Tintin dictionaries. So meets WP:NLIST, and is a good SPLIT. -Mushy Yank. 19:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a very good source, but someone needs to use it to move this article beyond a pure plot summary. Until then this can be redirected. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Belgium. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep needs to be better sourced, but does appear to have been covered as a set by secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The OR delete votes are incorrect - while there's a chance a list item or two might be OR, since I haven't reviewed the sources completely, this list has clearly been the topic of secondary coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 22:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a great deal of interest in Herge's choice of settings and the way he depicts them, and especially how that changed over time, which material could be used to expand the paragraph in the main article. But this listing is largely trivia, and it doesn't do anything towards that understanding. To be blunt, it's the sort of east stamp-collecting list article that WP authors write instead of grappling with the real work of writing a coherent analysis. Looking at the British sublist, for instance, most of it has to do with The Black Island, which, duh, is set there, and the rest are incidental and lack context. There are many entries which are only passing mentions, again without any context. Yeah, sure, you can make such an article, but really, the actually useful list information already appears in a list of the works themselves, because it's the larger setting of each— Russia, America, Peru, Arabia, and so forth— that are worth "listing". Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TH1980. This is mostly unsourced WP:OR, and redundant with The Adventures of Tintin#Settings. It's not tenable to create separate lists of every scene from a piece of fuction. A redirect or selective merge may be an acceptable compromise, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is mostly unsourced and potentially contained OR. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prhartcom: Goustien (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Adventures of Tintin#Settings per WP:ATD. This list is mostly unsourced WP:RAWDATA, but it may potentially become fixed into a nice paragraph in the main article. Archrogue (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin

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

So, there's some interesting stuff here in the form of well written and referenced text on "The maritime world in The Adventures of Tintin", but this is wrapped in fancrufty and poorly referenced list that fails WP:NLIST (and while the list appears to have plenty of footnotes, many are just unreferenced notes or commentary). As a list, I think his has no reason to exist, but the content could probably be merged somewhere, or maybe split (or perhaps we could just delete the list part of this article and rename it?). It's a weird case, I've very rarely seen some good content bundled with bad one in such a way... If this is somehow kept, obviously, this is not a list of boats, but ships (or ships and boats?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Lists, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: For what it's worth, the corresponding article in French is a GA. The topic is covered in a dedicated book! Horeau, Y. (1999). Tintin, Haddock et les bateaux. (Among other existing sources) Meets WP:NL. Topic addressed as a set.The rest of the issues are normal issues that can be handled through normal editing. Most of the ships in Tintin are notable, btw. Even see GNews -Mushy Yank. 19:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. Azuredivay (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank. BilletsMauves^€500 10:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:NLIST. I'm only seeing trivial mentions and plot details. The relevant plot stuff is already mentioned at the main series article, which would be an acceptable redirect target, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of ships in The Adventures of Tintin as more appropriate title (I assume this might come from French "bateaux" as in the title of Horeu's book meaning both ships and boats). As already pointed out by Mushy Yank there are secondary sources with enough coverage as to fullfill WP:LISTN. Everything else are problems which can be solved through normal editing and are therefore no grounds for deletion. If someone wants to transform this into a fully prose article, or even expand the scope to The sea in The Adventures of Tintin, I have no objections. But these again would be editorial decisions which are no grounds for deleting what we have now. Daranios (talk) 16:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn (Tintin)

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

This is a Good Article (from 2015), but it also seems to be a major piece of WP:FANCRUFT with big WP:GNG issues. There is no analysis or significance section; there is "Plot role" but that's pure WP:OR based on the original graphic novels(!). The only part using independent sources is 'creation', but that's just some SIGCOV trivia about how the author was researching materials for his work. Fine, I don't dispute The Secret of the Unicorn is notable, but I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this is redirected (maybe partially merged?) there (while the ship appears in another book; there is no source that cares about that that's not a plot summary). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Transportation, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tintin is not French, the comics (and the character) are Belgian. -Mushy Yank. 22:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems to be consistently well-sourced to books discussing the Tintin series, and discusses at length the creation of the fictional boat and what is admittedly some trivia about similar real boats, but given this "trivia" is present in multiple reliable secondary sources, it's probably OK to include. If the article was just the "In the Adventures of Tintin" section, which is mostly a plot summary (although just the fact that it is a plot summary does not make it OR, which is important), then I could see this AFD, but with the quality of reliable secondary sources, I think it's worth keeping.

I don't know if it's really a good candidate to merge, either, given it features in two books and the articles for those are already quite long. Maybe take it as a necessary split of The Secret of the Unicorn? WP:GNG just requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article does have. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles Size wise, The Secret... article is just 3516 words, so can easily absorb this rather small one (particularly since the only useful content is the 'creation/design' stuff, with the plot summary being non-encyclopedic plotcurft, per WP:ARTICLESIZE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are non-fiction published reliable sources currently present in the article, including Hergé, the Man Who Created Tintin, Hergé: Son of Tintin, and The Art of Hergé, Inventor of Tintin, supporting behind-the-scenes information about the creation and design of the ship. There are a lot of plotcruft articles to delete; this is not one of them. Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to The Secret of the Unicorn. The dev info here is valuable, but given the ship is primarily associated with The Secret of the Unicorn, and shows no indication of any actual real world impact beyond merely existing, I don't see much value in it remaining afloat. If the dev info isn't already at the respective book's article, I'd merge it there, since this is good stuff, but tied almost exclusively to the development of the Unicorn's appearance in this story. An article without any evidence it's notable in way of SIGCOV or actual Reception/Analysis of its role just isn't notable, no matter how much BTS info exists, especially when the ship itself has only appeared three times (With all being tied directly to Secret of the Unicorn) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a GA....and the topic clearly meets the requirements for notability through multiple secondary sources. -Mushy Yank. 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a GA does not mean an article is instantly notable. Rebecca Chambers, whose AfD literally just closed, was a GA before it was closed as merge, as one example. Regardless, sources need to illustrate an impact independently notable of the series. Citing developmental information relating primarily to one particular book/pair of books that is more fitting at that article fails Wikipedia:NOPAGE in terms of notability guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The "creation" of this fictional boat is just part of the "creation" of the notable graphic novel it appears in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokelego999. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV without something more substantial about its reception or analysis. The WP:GA is only from one editor at a time where Wikipedia standards were more lax. A selective merge would be a valid compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect even without sources to build a reception section, the ship is linked to The Secret of the Unicorn and can be described there. Archrogue (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect since most of it just a fancruft and fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Spark

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

Major WP:GNG and WP:V failure. Very poorly referenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, summarizing a plot point (history of a fictional ship), and cataloging its appearances in various media, making WP:ORish claims that "The stories sparked considerable interest in the puffers, and many books explore their now vanished world." (in any case, if the stories sparked interest, that's not the same as this fictional ship doing that...). The articles does not even make the claim that one particular work or series is relevant to this ship, so I am not even sure what might be a plausible redirect target (per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Transportation and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has also been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland._{Cactus.man ✍} 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If sources can't be found to meet GNG, I'd suggest merging to Para Handy - that's the article about this long-running franchise as a whole, and the information about the various TV series featuring the Vital Spark is duplicated there (whereas it currently doesn't even have a photo of the ship). Adam Sampson (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A merge or redirect are always better than outright deletion, thanks for the suggestion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Para Handy per the suggestion by Adam Sampson. The term "Vital Spark" will have widespread recognition amongst Scottish readers and those of wider literary awareness, but two of the three Notes in the article are currently dead links. I think encyclopaedia coverage is therefore still warranted. Cactus.man ✍ 16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep in light of the substantial improvement work done by Drchriswilliams to bring the article up to sufficient standard that it now easily satisfies WP:GNG Cactus.man ✍ 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I was surprised to see an article with such an iconic name nominated, but I found the article was in bad shape. While the name started off as fiction, there came to be several vessels associated with the name. There is plenty of coverage in newspapers of Vital Spark Clyde puffers that have appeared in the various television series. Several of the articles feature pictures of the vessels. I have added a range of sources over several decades. I've edited the lead to reflect this. There is a bit of duplication of content across the articles on Neil Munro, Para Handy and the three series. The Para Handy article isn't particularly well referenced but some of the plot-related content could be moved to those if it helped to keep it in one place. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persephone (tugboat)

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

A boat from a niche TV show. Weak referencing and major issues with WP:GNG; a bit of coverage in local news about restoration. My BEFORE yields nothing else. WP:ATD-R would suggest, at best, redirect to the TV show (here, The Beachcombers). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Transportation, and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Beachcombers. Fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG, but there is a valid redirect, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. S. Minnow

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

Fictional ship from TV show Gilligan's Island. Very weak, almost non-existent WP:GNG. The article is a plot summary with a single nod to reality outside the fact that it appears in that show, i.e. a brief comment that someone bought the ship, is restoring it and planning to use it as a local tourist attraction. My BEFORE yielded nothing except plot summaries. The best I can suggest is WP:ATD-R to the TV show. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, Transportation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilligan's Island. Most of the info is unsourced, so there isn't much to merge. Perhaps the very last bit about the boat being restored could make a one-sentence addition to the GI article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with a selective merge, as suggested. Bearian (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Farquaad

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

I went deeper to find sources about this character. However, I found only this source is proven to be usable [57] (this source alone wouldn't be enough). This source [58] didn't discuss Lord Farquaad, while this one is just a theory thing [59]; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:07, 1 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, Film, and Comics and animation. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of Shrek (franchise) characters. The reception is very weak; WP:SIGCOV is an issue. He is not as iconic as the green guy or the donkey, I am afraid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are plenty of places on the internet for coverage of tangential in-universe characters from animated films. Wikipedia is not one of them. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no SIGCOV, per Carrite. Serial (speculates here) 06:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the current references look good enough to me. I note that the proponent avoid mentioning the Irish Examiner article. Quickly looking around recent news on the Internet, there's a recent article in Excélsior, a major Mexican newspaper that seems significant. There's also relatively frequent references to the character in media such as this Washington Post article which notes that the UK Labour party compared an announcement by UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to a royal address to feudal subjects by the out-of-touch tyrant Lord Farquaad. We need entries like this to provide context to such article. If I looked back further than 2024, there'd undoubtedly be more. GNG is met. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the sources you showed are not WP:SIGCOV. The 1st source has no discussion of the character at all and only shows the image of the character and said only "it's Lord Farquuad!". 2nd, trivia mentions and unreliable source with a trivial mention like "Who is Lord Farquaad? Weeeeeell,"according to a fan of "Shrek", there is one new theory that reveals who the parents could be, well, little is known about the character." 3rd, it only has a little brief comment but a trivia one. How are these sources helpful? Like, for example, when someone asked "Who is Nfitz?" and you're just going to answer it with "I do have one theory that reveals who his parents are, but little is known about Nfitz." What makes these trivial discussions WP:SIGCOV or valuable to be in our encyclopaedia? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carrite @Shooterwalker @Serial Number 54129 I think redirecting is better than outright deleting the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a clear and valid search term and I could support a redirect. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Shrek (franchise) characters - The sources shown above are not significant coverage of the character, and while sources certainly mention the character when discussing the plot of the original Shrek film, there is nothing to justify an independent article. But, as a viable search term, deletion would not be appropriate when there is a valid Redirect target as an WP:ATD. Rorshacma (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per WP:PRESERVE. This is the main antagonist and should be covered somewhere, even if only a few sentences. No need to delete the history. Archrogue (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Narayana Murthy (disambiguation)

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

WP:ONEOTHER, tagged for more than a year Paradoctor (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. As guidelines says “ If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.” TheSlumPanda (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A disambiguation page is not required here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Waters

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

None of the sources provided offer significant coverage, except for source 3, which is an interview, and thus not independent. I checked sources 4 and 5, which have broken links on Wikipedia, and they are just image captions that offer no significant coverage. Steelkamp (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mayors of Wanneroo, and include some relevant information there. The article doesn't seem to meet GNG, likely because Waters' success was in the 90s, and finding archival sources may have been difficult (though they might exist). Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Wanneroo as an appropriate outcome. Lists of mayors, whether as a stand-alone page or as part of the page about the municipality, is appropriate content for our project (assuming the information is verifiable). The standard for a stand alone page of an individual mayor is sufficient content to explain the work an individual did in office and their legacy. --Enos733 (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is only one week old. There is no discussion on the talk page about the need for SIGCOV, and there are no tags on the article. Why bring it straight to AfD, rather than attempt WP:ATD? It's possible that the article creator has sources (eg newspaper articles) that they didn't think were relevant to include (the creator has been on WP since 2022, but has only 15 edits) - or that other WP editors have access to Western Australian newspapers of the time. Unfortunately, WA papers from the 80s and 90s are not on Trove or Newspapers.com. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. While Wanneroo is large enough that a substantive article about a mayor of it could be kept, a keepable article about a mayor has to be a lot more than just a chronology of her electoral history: we would need to see content about specific things she did as mayor, specific projects she spearheaded as mayor, specific effects she had on the development and evolution of Wanneroo, and on and so forth. This glosses right over any of that, however, and devotes far more time to documenting her unsuccessful candidacy for a parliamentary seat than it does to contextualizing the significance of her mayoralty — but being an unsuccessful candidate for an NPOL-passing office isn't a notability claim either. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually add the type of content and sourcing that would properly establish notability as a mayor, but "mayor who existed and then lost when she ran for higher office" is not enough in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wanneroo. I'm fine with this being at AfD, too - the sourcing isn't quite there, and a redirect keeps the history in case better sourcing is found, which is really the biggest problem here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mayors of Wanneroo because it doesn't have sufficient evidence of notability. Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival House

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

Don't believe this meets GNG, not finding any other coverage beyond the sources provided with the last being the architectural studio behind the building. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and England. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not well-sourced and the language is a bit promo, "landmark office building", but the architects - Aukett Swanke - are quite well known. Not that they are mentioned. KJP1 (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Have searched, can't find significant coverage in independent sources. Considered two redirects, Carnival Corporation & plc and Aukett Swanke, but neither look very useful. Tacyarg (talk) 10:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have checked the recently published Hampshire: South edition of the Pevsner Architectural Guides and it's not mentioned. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm surprised it doesn't meet GNG but I can't find any secondary coverage of the building at all. SportingFlyer T·C 07:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities, towns and villages in the Maldives

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

The article only lists the cities and atoll capitals, which List of islands of the Maldives already do. This article could be redirected to that article since it fits WP:ATD-R. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to merge the articles? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Why is that? Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep It's a list that's clearly a part of an established set of articles. Just because it's duplicative doesn't mean we can't have it - someone looking for this list may not know to go to the List of islands of the Maldives. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Administrative divisions of the Maldives, which already has prose about cities and atolls and tables with all of the atoll capitals and cities. I see no need for this duplicative page (there is nothing to even merge it seems), and a redirect and updated links will help users find this. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rangpuri people

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

There is no such thing as 'Rangpuri people'. The only recognized entity is the Rangpuri language. As a residence of Rangpur, Bangladesh, I can say, some of us may speak Rangpuri (which is mainly Bengali with a Rangpuri accent just), but we are not a distinct group called 'Rangpuri people'. People who live in Rangpur Division, call themselves 'Rangpuriya' or 'Rangpurian' but that is just a regional identity, not an ethnic one. Additionally, there is no reliable source to support this article. None of the citations actually mention 'Rangpuri people', making the article misleading. It should be deleted before it creates further confusion. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 07:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, Assam, Bihar, and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Mehedi Abedin 15:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did a source review. Looked at source #1 by Toulmin. It seems like it's a debate whether it's a language or a dialect? But "The Meaning" appears to be some random unreliable source; World Mission Media discusses the language and may be self-published, The Financial Express discusses dishes and does not mention a "Rangpuri people", the Rangpur District Official Website I can't access but is tagged as "failed verification", and BSS News doesn't mention a "Rangpuri people" either. Given that none of the sources mention the subject of the article, the "Rangpuri people", Googling also gives nothing, and someone on the ground says the article makes no sense, this article should be deleted. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is no ethnic group called "Rangpuri people", the cited sources are all about the Rangpuri dialect spoken in the region. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haruki Mitsuda

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Japanese Wikipedia only contains primary sources, except for: Gekisaka 1 which contains a few lines and is a weak support for notability; Gekisaka 2 which is a match report - does not support notability at all - and Nikkan Sports which is even less about Mitsuda. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Does the source from Gekisaka mention him in detail? Is it just a passing mention on squad list? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this Gekisaka have an indepth coverage Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daphnée Blouin

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

I'm not finding any significant and independent coverage in a WP:BEFORE; the sources already in the article do not pass the bar. 8 football matches in Turkey is not an impactful post-college career either. Though the player has now moved to the Halifax Tides, I only find WP:PASSING and WP:ROUTINE coverage of that as well. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately, subject does not appear to have significant secondary sourcing to pass WP:SIGCOV. This article is WP:TOOSOON. I hope to see it back again one day. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article will be returned as long as WP:SIRS are found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I've recently expanded and updated the article. In January 2025, she joined a Canadian professional soccer club. Please recheck. CeeGee 11:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent coverage, even after recent expansion. Tides FC and Université Laval are not independent sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Al-Kaebi

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

Footballer seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The creator was a notorious sockpuppeteer and is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Active footballer in UAE. [1] — Cerium4B —Talk? • 09:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating - but being an active footballer is not notable in itself, and neither is being included in Transfermarkt. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSPORT and no WP:SIGCOV. jolielover♥talk 13:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Reserve goalkeeper for a UAE minor division team with few games in his career. Svartner (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Lamp

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

It appears to struggle with notability. Coverage appears to be around Harald Riegler and THQ Nordic's acquisition. Found this article from Der Standard for the latter. Perhaps merging into the legacy of Sproing Interactive or into THQ Nordic? IgelRM (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light

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

I came across this article as it was linked on Ahmadiyya as 'not to be confused with'. The organisation seems to be new, and not notable enough. Out of the sources listed on the article, only one seems to be from academia, the other sources seem to be in relation to issues surrounding the religion. Google search does not seem to yield reliable/relevant sources about the religion.

All of the users who have contributed to the article also seem to be newcomers, with the exception of one user who has been around for a year. The article seems to serve as ADVOCACY. HolyArtThou (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting to Abdullah Hashem, the founder of the movement, seems reasonable. Much of the current text appears to focus on him. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMV the sect is more notable than the founder, so I’d favour redirecting the article on him to this ine, but that’s not on the table. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. IMO this will probably be notable sometime, but this has only gotten coverage in CESNUR which while the people who write for it are respected academics when publishing elsewhere is too opinionated to be RS. But usually anything they write about will be published in better outlets eventually. Just wait till then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would keep this one. Does seem inseparable from the founder. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's inseperable from the founder, would it not make sense to redirect? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a redirect would also make sense. HolyArtThou (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just in case anyone, religiological geek or not, would like to update it for any reason. --Apisite (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, I don't think its notable enough right now. Aside from the one paper, the only relevant source regarding their beliefs on the article currently (and much of the text has been shed from the article since the nomination for deletion) is 'Bitter Winter', which is an English human rights magazine/organisation based in Italy. In fact pretty much all of the sources are from Human rights organisation, and those that aren't are references to blogs or governmental websites. HolyArtThou (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it's a new religious movement and also listed on the list of new religious movement, list of Mahdi claimants and more. There's no need to delete it just because some people hate new religions. Many of the sources are legit. And the article has been there for quite long and has some importance. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AimanAbir18plus: There is no question of like or dislike. It's not notable enough to be an article, and the sources are dubious as I've pointed out. HolyArtThou (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would Delete if you look into some of the sources are written by the same people that have contributed to the wiki. 102.38.27.59 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reputable sources discussing this movement/religion/cult like https://nypost.com/2024/07/20/world-news/doomsday-movement-grips-youth-in-the-middle-east/ and probably more out there. --NebulaDrift (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another reliable source, https://www.bernama.com/en/news.php?id=2378390 NebulaDrift (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another source, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/algeria-drop-all-charges-against-members-of-a-religious-minority/ NebulaDrift (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The New York Post is not the best example of a reputable source (hard to get worse, really). Bernama isn't listed at WP:RS/P, but it is a Malaysian state-controlled media outlet, and it seems more than a little biased towards these "deviants". I don't think it can be treated as a reliable source in this context. That leaves the last source, which, while more reliable, is just news and a direct follow-up to a source already given. This information is still valuable, but I don't think it warrants a standalone article. It can be merged into the founder's article. Also, I don't believe the other three keep votes (aside from NebulaDrift's) should be factored into the outcome of this discussion, as none made coherent arguments for the notability of this movement, with one going so far as to baselessly accuse the nominator of bias. — Anonymous 02:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article failing WP:GNG & is full of fringe mess, mostly cited with poor Non-RS sources. It lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent scholarly sources and cited books appear to be either self-published or fail to establish notability. 𝐌P⚚𝛂n 𓃠 {✝alk} 20:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or Move -~~ This is a "new" religious movement so it's not as notable which is obvious, but they are notable enough for Malaysian govt. to claim them as "deviants" and also human rights watch orgs detailing their persecution. If that doesn't meet the requirement of notability, then it should be moved under a section of the founder's wikipage Abdullah Hashem. NebulaDrift (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have alread !voted to keep above, so I am striking your bolded comment here. You cannot do so twice. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Magomedov (judoka born 1991)

Withdrawn by nominator. Cassiopeia talk 03:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails GNG for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS, WP:RS whereby the subject is talked about in length and depth for WP:V. Silver medalist for Judo Grand Prix in Hague does not qualify to meet GNG. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Russia. Cassiopeia talk 23:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've made significant changes to the article. He's not notable as a judoka, but I think 3 world championships in combat sambo is worthy of note. FWIW, he clearly meets WP:MANOTE. I admit I didn't go looking for coverage, but it's hard for me to believe that it doesn't exist in Russian sources. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have two keeps, Papaursa and the nominator, but I think this discussion should go on further, because none of the sources are independent or significant yet. Geschichte (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already withdrawn by nominator, but one editor is asking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom, needs work with refs, but now meets notability. Nswix (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Sportspeople are required to have a citation to a source with IRS SIGCOV, regardless of achievement. If editors think he is notable from his meeting essay criteria then they have to provide sources demonstrating GNG. Draftification will give this a chance to happen. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hollyhurst, Telford

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

Not seeing any Notability at all. It's part of a parish, and that's it. The article is nothing more than an description of where it's close to. The sourcing is weak, and it links to nothing. KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability.

PamD 23:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ , now that Rupples has created a destination. I've created the missing dab page Hollyhurst. PamD 06:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on third thoughts. Non notable, and parish/town council wards do not merit a redirect and dab page entry. (Might make an exception and list this on the dab page, unlinked except to Oakengates, to avoid confusion with other Shropshire Hollyhurst). PamD 14:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was a parish ward so maybe is notable per GEOLAND but otherwise although its on Google maps it isn't an OS settlement. As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollyhurst there are other settlements with this name including another in Shropshire but this one doesn't appear notable. The creation of this article reminded me of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InspectorBottle/Archive but the author doesn't appear involved in that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oakengates#Governance a header I've just renamed and added a list of wards under. Hollyhurst, centred around Hollyhurst Road, is one of four wards making up the civil parish of Oakengates. When recently verifying narrative on this article the only sources I found were maps and a mention within a news item on local elections, so there doesn't appear to be sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Rupples (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to merge to Oakengates#Governance I found these sources mentioning Hollyhurst, they hint to something once existing here, likely a row of coal miners cottages or industries?: [60] - The Colliery Year Book and Coal Trades Directory, [61] - The Black Book, A Directory of Solid Fuel-burning Appliances and Associated Equipment. Of course this could all be covered in Oakengates. I am just looking but these two sources only record one or two mentions of people and a small settlement like said maybe housing or industries. When compared on an OS map like here: [62] The area is occupied by Wombridge Iron Works and then in another side by side of 1940s, it is almost if anything abandoned. Nothing there but likely wasteland? I think Wombridge could have an article of its own since it has some mentions online with historical and other notes. Of course I will make on my sandbox and will maintain it as a draft until the time is right to offer it up as a separate issue. Hollyhurst perhaps should be put under Oakengates. Maybe as a ward and a little about the iron works once occupying an area north of Oakengates. DragonofBatley (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is very helpful. Could it have wider application? There are a lot of wards/suburbs/areas articles which appear to have little/no notability. An example I'm just looking at is Daisy Bank. Could we Re-direct it into the Suburbs section of Walsall? KJP1 (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Daisy Bank is a bit different to Hollyhurst. I'll explain briefly but formally why. Daisy Bank had two names Daisy Bank, Walsall and Daisy Bank railway station near Bilston. Now thats two different areas. But Walsalls Daisy Bank has some notability even if minor to primary research.
- Links include: National Collection of Aerial Photography
https://ncap.org.uk › NCAP-000-0...

Daisy Bank; Walsall District; England | NCAP - National Collection of Aerial Photos, The National Archives

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk › ...

Coach house & stables, Daisy Bank for Samson Fox, Walsall] - The National Archives, The Walsall observer, and repository of local literature - Page 74 - The Walsall observer, and repository of local literature - Page 74. These are just examples. Perhaps these could be added to the article and see if it may help whether it has enough notability to be an article? Maybe like Chuckery, Caldmore and Pleck for example? Just a suggestion DragonofBatley (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really oppose redirect to Oakengates, but nor do I think it would be useful – the article is named "Hollyhurst, Telford" and I can find no evidence that there is a "Hollyhurst, Telford" in the sense that people call a neighbourhood of Telford "Hollyhurst". The addresses in the ward all give their neighbourhood as Wrockwardine Wood. The electoral ward is specifically for Oakengates parish – it has no relevance outside of the context of Oakengates parish – so is unlikely to ever be referred to as "Hollyhurst, Telford". In the 2 sources that DragonofBatley cites, Hollyhurst appears to be the name of a house/property in an address (and again, the addresses give the property's neighbourhood as Wrockwardine Wood). Joe D (t) 18:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like Steinsky, I don't find evidence of a Hollyhurst ever being here. This was historically Wombridge, with the spot geolocated in the article being in the middle of the erstwhile Wombridge Iron Works and south of the Wombridge Colliery. Yes this is the Wombridge that is in the VCH, that we don't even have an article about. Hollyhurst Road, the only thing apparently named Hollyhurst on any map, is off Wombridge Road, for pity's sakes! I cannot find anything to indicate that this isn't just made up from whole cloth based upon 1 road name. How on Earth does anyone research this place and not come up with Wombridge straight away? Or manage to invent a Hollyhurst? Uncle G (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- DragonofBatley, who created this, if I recall correctly said the place names used for article titles were taken from Google Maps and Hollyhurst is indeed named thereon. Rupples (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I cannot speak to Google Maps, which in my experience scrapes names from random business WWW sites that do not know their own proper addresses; but I'm consulting non-dumb-algorithmically-made maps like the modern O.S. maps that still have Wombridge marked today (and no Hollyhurst) just south of the geolocation pin in this article and this 1885 O.S. map which has "Wombridge" in three sizes of type splatted across it. It's quite unsubtle about it. ☺ And from knowing the correct name it is but a short step to the history books. There's not only the Victoria County History. There are a number of Shropshire history books that document, for example, the Augustinian priory of St. Leonard in Wombridge (Wombridge Priory), remembered today in the name of Priory Road that is just south along Wombridge Road from the aforementioned Hollyhurst Road. In the face of all of this, which practically shouts itself from maps and history books, it is absurd to go with the idea of Hollyhurst. Uncle G (talk) 06:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is verifiably a Hollyhurst ward for elections to Oakengates Town Council, but I'm coming to the view that such wards don't even merit a redirect, which would logically require a dab page entry too in most cases. (Although a dab page entry might just be useful here, as there is a real Hollyhurst also in Shropshire!) PamD 14:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anyone was thinking of it, we now have a draft for Wombridge at User:Aymatth2/Wombridge. Uncle G (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Ying (producer)

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42. Fails WP:GNG. Rosentad (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: Justification for Dai Ying’s Notability

I strongly believe that Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:ENT (Entertainment Industry-Specific Notability) due to her leadership role at iQIYI, her involvement in award-winning productions, and significant media coverage. Below are the key reasons why this article should be retained:

1. Professional Roles

Dai Ying is a Vice President at iQIYI, one of China’s largest video streaming platforms, and serves as the General Manager of the Original Drama Development Center. Her leadership role in overseeing original content development at iQIYI positions her as an influential figure in China’s entertainment industry.[63] Executive-level figures in major entertainment companies frequently meet notability guidelines, given their direct impact on large-scale productions.

Dai Ying, as Vice President of iQIYI, is directly responsible for developing original content and overseeing hit Chinese dramas that gained international recognition (The Bad Kids, The Long Night)[64]. This aligns with figures like Ted Sarandos, Kathleen Kennedy, and Bela Bajaria, who are considered notable for their impact on streaming and original content production.

Another crucial aspect to consider is the underrepresentation of Chinese women executives in the entertainment industry on Wikipedia. While Western executives frequently meet notability guidelines, there are very few articles on Chinese female media executives, despite their significant impact on the entertainment industry.

Wikipedia has a well-documented systemic bias issue, particularly in terms of gender and geographical representation. Studies reported on Wikipedia have shown that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s coverage. As mentioned by the co-founder Jimmy Wales, as a newcomer female editor, I'm hoping to be encouraged by writing about notable women in my lifetime even though I work 12 hours in a restaurant. Wikipedia is an inspiration and gives me hope one day I can also work in an office.

Women in Chinese entertainment and business leadership are often overlooked, despite their contributions to global media.

2. Notable Productions with scale

Dai Ying has served as the executive producer for several critically acclaimed Chinese dramas that have gained international recognition.[65] These include:

The Bad Kids – A highly acclaimed suspense drama that became a cultural phenomenon in China, gaining high ratings on Douban (8.9/10) and sparking widespread discussion.
The Long Night – An award-winning drama that received the Best OTT Original Series Award at the Busan International Film Festival. The show was also broadcast on NHK Japan.
"Dr. Tang" – A notable medical drama highlighting China’s advancements in medical technology.
War of Faith - Captured the attention of overseas markets

These productions have been recognized both domestically and internationally, which strengthens Dai Ying’s case for notability. She has produced over 30 dramas. The dramas she produced has received 7 wins and 2 nominations.

Source: IMDb

3. Significant Media Coverage

Dai Ying has been interviewed and featured in various reputable media outlets discussing her role in shaping China’s streaming industry. These interviews and articles provide independent, in-depth coverage of her work, meeting Wikipedia’s WP:GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources.

Source: Launch new projects

Source: Won Producer of the Year

Conclusion

Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines as:

She holds a top executive role at a major streaming company (iQIYI).

She has produced multiple award-winning, widely recognized dramas.

She has received independent media coverage from reputable sources.

Based on these factors, I urge editors to reconsider the deletion nomination. I am most willing to learn and would greatly appreciate sharing on feedback on how to improve the article.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Heureuxl 18:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heureuxl is the creator of this article (posted by Nominator). Rosentad (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral, ~~I agree that [66] [67] likely constitute GNG, unless there is some connection between Sohu and iQIYI that I haven't found which would make them non-independent.~~ (stricken per comment below) As a heads up for the future @Heureuxl, WP:WALLSOFTEXT are much less likely to help your argument than a more succinct and focused argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity and well-understood on this.

Heureuxl 01:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower: Source [4] actually originates from Qianlong.com (here) and is not an official Sohu release. It's most likely a commercial press release, as it's very promotional and doesn't have the reporter's name on it. Source [5] is actually posted by a Sohu self-media account. It is self-published content. They are clearly not independent of the subject. Rosentad (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies — wasn't familiar with Sohu's formatting. I'll change my vote to neutral to now, there's enough breadth of coverage that it seems plausible to me that this subject could meet notability, but I don't have the experience to properly navigate the sourcing. [68] This source seems like it may meet GNG but it may also be self published, and this source [69] reads a bit promotional in tone (from the generated translation at least) but may also qualify. She also has an entry to on the CN Wikipedia, which could be used to find additional sourcing [70], though this entry is also tagged with concerns about COI and promotional content. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosentad @Wasianpower

Thank you for your feedback. But just because it's reported by a sohu self media account, how does it say that it's self published content when it's a media report? Please let me know so I can improve my 3rd party sources selection for the future. Also, how can I further improve the article? Thank you both.

Heureuxl 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Producers are run of the mill, and do not get an encyclopedia article unless they pass both WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Almost all producers are just managers of money and other resources. They are not creative people. If they are involved with the creative process, then we have a whole Guideline for that. I don't see how the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited," or has been "known for originating a significant new concept," etc, or theory, or technique. The only argument is the subject had "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Turning to significant coverage about them, I find it lacking. Compare Lorne Michaels. Bearian (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and handshakes

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no need for this article. Wikipedia is a encyclopaedia, not a news website. And why we need to create an article on what Trump does? RealStranger43286 (talk) 06:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, Social science, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We are not obliged to write everything about Donald Trump but there are literature from 2017 to present talking about his form of handshake. Remember, our inclusion criteria is the GNG, and once a “neologism” (what do we call this?) meets that criteria, there’s no need to delete it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: When it's the third AfD discussion, that tends to a key indicator that past doubts about the worthiness of the topic have been quashed. Here, aside from the voluminous news coverage, the topic is covered in four books/journals – so that's plenty secondary analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia + wasn't this deleted years ago? Kinopiko ^talk 21:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Read, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:LASTTIME. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources cited in article clearly demonstrate a depth of coverage over years, establishing notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate that I'm saying this, but it's been a prominent subject or WP:CASESTUDY in multiple academic publications. That's just about an automatic guarantee in terms of notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Celts (1978 TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All citations are just scripts and schedules DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
  The review provides about 589 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Last week's 'Chronicle' programme, The Celts (BBC 2, Wednesday), seemed to me to adorn its topic rather more than to explain it. Indeed, although it was packed full of information, and although the Heavy Brigade of archaeology—Professor Stuart Piggott and others—moved through it in echelon of squadrons, the programme was, as it were, inefficiently informative; the information was, no doubt, all there, but it did not come across. At least, here is one viewer—anxious to be informed, eager for enlightenment—who found at the end of the program-me that he had learned little new."
  The review notes: "Not, then, a documentary in the educational nuts-and-bolts style of, say, an Open University programme on topology (whatever that is), but a sort of reflective essay in the style of Montaigne or—more appropriately—Haz-litt, in which the author explores a theme from a personal standpoint; a theme which he adorns rather than explains. 'The Celts' conveyed a sense of enthusiasm for its subject which, surely, is a legitimate and important function of documentary. One may criticise it, unfairly, because it did not approach its subject in the style of a school or university textbook; one may criticise it, less unfairly, because the manner sometimes got in the way of the matter; one must, however, acknowledge the rare pleasure conferred by 'The Celts' as a creative programme, and the remarkable way in which it re-sensitised one's somewhat atrophied taste-buds to the achievements of Celtic peoples."
2. Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The Celts. After Saturday's soccer international we in London hardly need to ask "Who were the Celts?" But this series is almost invariably fascinating and this piece of archaeological detective work should be well worth overcoming our prejudices to see. David Parry-Jones finds the Celts a vain lot—inclined to do battle with the Romans without helmets for fear of spoiling their coiffures. They were also, it seems, widespread throughout Europe notorious drunks, addicted to human sacrifice, ruled by wild-eyed Druids and capable of producing the finest art forms of any early European people."
3. Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Commentary is unavoidable in television archaeology, but why David Parry-Jones had to compete with a battery of symphony orchestras and at least one choir in the sound track of J. Mervyn Williams's history of The Celts (BBC-2) I cannot imagine. In truth this was not among best-organised issues of "Chronicle." It was untidy in minor matters like the identification of speakers and left the major issue of where the Celts originated in a kind of Celtic twilight somewhere the plains of Hungary. The principal achievement was to reinforce the prejudices of those who dislike the Celts. One Anne Ross declared that they had lost Maiden Castle in Dorset to the Romans through drink and because they were better at making a noise than fighting. The script of Emyr Humphreys was a bit free with its generalisations."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Celts to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either this series was not made in 1978, or the three reviews found by Cunard are not about this series. I'm going to take some time to work out which it is, and if, whenever it was made and wherever it was shown, it is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: - The article claims that the series was only shown in Wales, yet the two newspapers in particular- the (London) Evening Standard and the Daily Telegraph- are based in England. Knowing what I know about the Anglo-centricity of the media based there, it's unlikely that even the Telegraph (distributed UK-wide) would have reviewed a Wales-only series.

Also, they appear to refer to a single episode of a series/strand/slot called "Chronicle", which references to the four-part "Celts" don't mention. Yet one of the people mentioned in their reviews (David Parry-Jones) is also linked to the 1978 series.

My guess- and to be clear I'm not claiming this *is* anything other than a guess!- is that the 1978 series was possibly either a more ambitious standalone take on the same premise inspired by the single-episode 1975 version or an otherwise unrelated series that had the same name because it was about The Celts by people who knew about the Celts.

(I should also make clear that while I "created" this article, that was only by moving existing content from The Celts (1987 TV series) and done in order to keep the two apparently-unrelated (and incorrectly combined) series separate. That said, I wouldn't have done so if I didn't feel the 1978 series was most likely notable enough to warrant an article). Ubcule (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DonaldD23: - The scripts were apparently deemed notable enough by the National Library of Wales to have been archived by them in the first place. Ubcule (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with the notability requirements of Wikipedia, which states that 3rd party sources are needed. Scripts are primary sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23: - That's fine, because the BBC scripts themselves aren't what's being cited there. (Indeed, their content- as far as I can tell- isn't even accessible via the link given nor available online).

The references themselves are the metadata record from the National Library of Wales- i.e. the aforementioned third party- describing an artifact they hold, i.e. the physical scripts.

That's not the same thing, and as such it arguably constitutes a demonstration of sufficient notability from a reputable third party.

Ubcule (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think being archived in a national library is an indication of notability in itself. National libraries are usually libraries of legal deposit (they hold everything published in the country), and they also archive unpublished material, ephemera, maps, etc, as part of their purpose of preserving the literature and culture of the nation. Not everything they hold is individually notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for catching the difference in years, @RebeccaGreen. I found these sources by searching for "The Celts" and "David Parry-Jones" so thought it was the same television series. I am striking my support for retention for now. I had added a "Reception" section to the article. I am saving the article content I had added here:

Extended content

The Celts is a 1975 television series produced by BBC2.

Reception

Bernard Davies of Broadcast penned a mostly negative review of the show. He said it "adorn[ed] its topic rather more than to explain it" and "inefficiently informative". He praised it for "the remarkable way in which it re-sensitised one's somewhat atrophied taste-buds to the achievements of Celtic peoples".^[1] The Evening Standard television critic Celia Brayfield praised the show as "almost invariably fascinating" and said "this piece of archaeological detective work should be well worth overcoming our prejudices to see".^[2] The Daily Telegraph's Sean Day-Lewis called the programme disorganised and found it "untidy in minor matters like the identification of speakers and left the major issue of where the Celts originated in a kind of Celtic twilight somewhere the plains of Hungary". He thought Emyr Humphreys's script was "a bit free with its generalisations".^[3]

References

^ Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
^ Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
^ Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.

The content can be used to create The Celts (1975 TV series). To avoid further confusing the situation, I recommend waiting for this AfD to close before creating any separate article.

Cunard (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: - Please see my comment above as it covers a couple of important points.

Firstly, it goes into more detail about why the single-episode 1975 "Celts" is most likely *not* the same as the four-part 1978 one- despite the involvement of the same people- and reviews for the former should not be associated with the latter.

Secondly, I mentioned this in passing in the same comment, but to make the point more clearly here... the review extracts you posted *themselves* strongly imply that the 1975 "The Celts" was *not* a "series" as your putative article states- nor even a standalone programme- but rather a single episode of an existing series or strand called "Chronicle":

(1) "Last week's 'Chronicle' programme, The Celts (BBC 2, Wednesday), seemed to me..."

(2) Although omitted by yourself, the original programme schedule you quoted from actually says

"8.0 CHRONICLE: The Celts. After Saturday's soccer international we in London..."

Note the general format used by the listing, with the time followed by the main programme title in capitalised bold text, followed by (where applicable) that week's particular episode or subject in regular text.

(3) "...J. Mervyn Williams's history of The Celts (BBC-2) I cannot imagine. In truth this was not among best-organised issues of "Chronicle.""

The "Chronicle" referred to is almost certainly this series which ran from 1966 to 1991.

As such, it's unlikely that this one particular episode would warrant its own article. Ubcule (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubcule:, @Cunard: - I notice that Chronicle (British TV programme) has no entries at all for 1975 in the table of episodes. This program, and the reviews as references, could be added there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the four-part 1978 series doesn't warrant an article of its own, I'd be open to suggestions about where it would best be redirected or pointed to since- as I mentioned above- my main aim in moving the content was to avoid conflating that series (and the content written about it) with the unrelated 1987 series of the same name. Ubcule (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to confuse the issue even more, I have found a 'TV Spotlight' column from 1976 in the Chester Chronicle which says "A LOOK at the old pre - Christian beliefs of the Celts can be seen the third programme in the series called ‘Y Celtiaid’ (The Celts) which will be shown on BBC Wales Television on Sunday. The druids will be discussed together with references to human sacrifice, the sacred oak of the Celts and lakes which were thought to be gateways to the other world. Taking part in the programme will be Professor Proinsias MacCana Dublin University and Professor Stuart Piggott Professor Archaeology at Edinburgh University the author of a book entitled ‘The Druids ’. Is this the same series? Was it made and shown before 1978? Is it yet another series called The Celts?

I am not finding more about a series shown in 1978 - just TV listings and one short 'coming soon' column which reads like a producer's summary, not a review. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an interesting relisting as there is plenty of discussion here but no actual "votes" here on what should happen with this article aside from the nominator. If the sources you are finding are for a different program with a similar or the same name, perhaps this article should be deleted and a new article should be written on the program/series that does have sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Liz's note above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAIRR Initiative

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

This organisation fails WP:NORG. Sources are none other than routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : While the article is basically an ad and perhaps needs a total rewrite, I don't think sources are an issue. See [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, but these were just the first things I found after hardly any searching. The coverage seems far beyond routine. — Anonymous 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources were created by the org, and the rest are churnalism in trade publications (WP:TRADES) based on press releases. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Organizations, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG. Reuters, FT are the best I could find; there's a lot of less significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NAIA national football championship series appearances by team

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

Subject lacks the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources as is currently the case here and a BEFORE didn't come up with anything better. PROD was removed without a rationale so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not sure this will letter of the law qualify but deleting this also feels like removing part of a set of college football stats articles. I can't make a source based argument for keep, but this isn't a delete which "feels" like it makes the encyclopaedia better. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the info can be covered in a different article? That being said, wikipedia isn't everything. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if a better article or article title is established, I'd just prefer not to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction as Sporting Flyer. The piece is well done and sourced, records a significant piece of college football history, and seems to make the encyclopeida better. And I did find this which discusses the topic of NAIA teams ranked by the number of postseason appearances. Cbl62 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE for the reasons stated by Cbl62. It would be a shame if the encyclopedia were to lose this information. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think there are any independent sources regarding the set, but individual sourcing on each team's total playoff appearances seems likelier to find. I agree with Cbl62 that a list such as this is encyclopedic. Therefore, I would prefer a different option than deleting. A rename or even merge target may work better. Conyo14 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are suggestions for ATDs, but can we please come into an agreement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorcel TV Canada

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

Advert of a nn channel. The refs are usual public relation blurbs --Altenmann >talk 20:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has enough sources to pass GNG, and by design you're not going to see a lot of press for an adult channel just because of its market. Nate • (chatter) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep generally passess GNG; NEXIST --Cinder painter (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sadly - easy enough to find more sources one, two, three (about their African channel). Now I need to go flush my cookies ... Nfitz (talk) 08:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Affairs Office (Syria)

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

Likely to become notable, but WP:TOOSOON. All we have are a handful of news articles from about a month ago and no further coverage. The status of the government of Syria itself is murky enough. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, it seems to be a cabinet-level office and a part of the government. It is already there and it is already something. Not being covered enough doesn't mean that it's not notable enough I believe.

- RamiPat (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that comments should be placed at the bottom of deletion discussions.) Unfortunately, that is indeed how notability works. — Anonymous 00:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an alternative to deletion. BilletsMauves^€500 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame (2025)

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

WP:TOOSOON, Although, it is announced that Paul "Triple H" Levesque that will inducted on Hall of Fame, it is premature to create this solely article. However, there is a section on WWE Hall of Fame#2025. Much likely supporting to Redirect for a while, then if it's announced completely who's in the hall of fame, it can be created solely. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now, until/unless we get more to work with. It's WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 as per LM2000, the topic simply does not have enough information at this time to warrant a standalone article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Clear secondary sources exist such as [78] and the event is two months away. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously WP:TOOSOON like you said, it's two months away. According to WP:TOOSOON:Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. It's Triple H that only have an announcement that inducted on Hall of Fame and if there is will be on hall of fame without a reliable sources might be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now. Per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:PWEVENT once the date and location has been announced for these events its deemed to have met the notability criteria. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (attorney)

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

Fails GNG. She assumed some positions at the United States Copyright Office, but none of them was extraordinary enough to confer her notability. Even if some positions she held are notable enough to have a stand-alone page, that doesn't automatically make her notable.

[79] Blog source.
[80] Routine announcement, which most people who get appointed to assume relevant federal roles usually get.
[81] Mostly Strong talking about her own work, not an independent source. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the valid arguments made by @TJRC
Nayyn (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She didn't just assume "some positions" at the Copyright Office; she was acting Register of Copyrights, the top position, the head of the entire Copyright Office, with responsibility for all U.S. policy relating to copyright law. I know that "register" sounds like a purely ministerial title, like a county register, but it is the equivalent to a position like the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's just that the USPTO head's title has changed from the mundane U.S. Commissioner of Patents to the more ornate Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, while the Copyright Office has stuck to its original title. Frankly, each of the registers in the List of registers of copyrights merits an article.

No objection to improving the sourcing.

Disclosure: I'm the editor who initially wrote the article. Frankly, I think it was better -- in content, sourcing and clarity of notability -- in its original form. I agree it should be cleaned up; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you using to back up the notability of this topic? NPOL? If yes then they didn’t merit NPOL#1, the sources itself are neither sufficient to merit NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is very clearly a national agency; and the head of the United States Copyright Office is very clearly someone "who [has] held ... national office" by virtue of holding the office heading that agency. TJRC (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is a part of the Library Congress. This is what NPOL#1 says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Which part of NPOL here does she pass? She doesn’t pass NPOL#2 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for your confusion. Are you saying that the US Copyright Office is not a federal agency? TJRC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of every federal agency is not notable; that’s not what NPOL is about. "Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find SIGCOV in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources." Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TJRC. For the record, most active Wikipedians are 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the subject via the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors member Kat Walsh, who's a mutual connection on LinkedIn and Copyright Counsel at Creative Commons. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't necessarily understand the views above about WP:GNG. Serving non significant or perhaps public political or literary offices doesn't meets WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. They’re a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Cataldo

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG. All I found were very brief pieces like 1 and 2. JTtheOG (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find any sources better than the ones singled out by the nominator Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Franceschetto

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

I am unable to find sufficient independent coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WHTR-LP (Florida)

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

Defunct US LPFM failing WP:GNG. Chuterix (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another remnant of the non-GNG-based looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2011, which at times seemed to be based more on existence (which is neither notability nor proof of same) than true notability, much less any verifiable information about anything beyond the license itself. (The article has never contained any information about its programming, which is a bad sign.) Being defunct would not take away any notability that does exist, but that still requires the type of significant coverage that few LPFMs receive. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Star

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

Sources cited are unreliable, creation is likely UPE. I cannot find any better reference material about this film. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources cited are unreliable"???? The Guardian, unreliable, how? Starburst and MovieMaker, unreliable? Sorry, no. You haven't read the page carefully. That makes THREE reviews. How many do you want? (and "Likely UPE"=maybe not UPE; and nothing on the page shows promotional intent; not a reason to delete). STRONG KEEP! -Mushy Yank. 10:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article created by blocked spammer, likely paid promotion - but there are enough RS reviews to pass WP:NFILM and more reviews linked from the sources in the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reviews in reliable sources such as The Guardian, Movie Maker, and Starburst, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Kaelin

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

Fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Only this source talks about him in some depth [82], all others only mention him briefly. Some of the people he taught and collaborated with are notable, but he is not. Badbluebus (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and Utah. Badbluebus (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be very honest, this would be considered nothing in Nigerian standard talk more of here in the West. I honestly don’t see any source. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Yes he has trained some notable singers and achieved a feature story in his local newspaper, but otherwise he is only ever mentioned in reliable media as a background figure for more notable people. This article functions as an attempted resume and a pretty uninformative one at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per my comment above. Unable to find sources to establish the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused as to what makes a person GNG. For example, this person (who works closely with Dean Kaelin) has a page and has a similar resume, but instead of teaching/working with other notable people, he is a comedian. All the information that was deleted, was not strictly a resume, but followed a template (like the one attached), and other published pages. https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Jason_Hewlett Anna.kaelin (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has film and tv credits (which would make him a credible musician/teacher) that have been deleted, and some of his non-American notable students (film stars etc.) have been deleted as well. Anna.kaelin (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUTX. Badbluebus (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SayIntentions.AI

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

Sources in the article are either primary sources, WP:UGC, or not reliable sources, failing to establish notability under WP:ORGCRIT. A Google news search does not show any RSes that can be used to establish notability. Parksfan1955 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Software. Parksfan1955 (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a pretty straightforward one. No WP:SIRS sources seem to exist online, and Parksfan1955's analysis seems valid. win8x (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: All sources promotional or UGC, and outside those all I could find are similar routine announcements or chat on aviation enthusiast communities. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:55, 1 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]

Andrei Arapov

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

No evidence of notability. Lacks reliable sources as well. I believe this fails WP:GNG. Limmidy (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, Uzbekistan, Russia, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: [1], [3], [4], [5] have no evidence of reliability as sources; they are corporate sites or low quality blogs. [2] is a WP:PRIMARY interview and I could not source anything that could support notability online or at newspapers.com. Non-notable BLP. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish the notability of this subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man seen to be doing his job. No indication of signifiance. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 4 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 withdrawn‎. i could swear i closed this a few hours ago... oh well. off to work on finishing the article (non-admin closure) consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 00:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoo Assassins

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

the article, as it is, fails gng by having one (1) probably reliable source, with the rest of it being unsourced info and seemingly inappropriate external links. surprisingly, though, i did find some potentially reliable sources and stashed them in one of my sandboxes, but incorporating them would likely require starting from scratch... so i'll vote to do exactly that. see also the edit history, as it had a lot of content before being trimmed down into nearly nothing, though said content is just more unsourced info, a trivia section, and a lot of speculation consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and United States of America. consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 02:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
additional notes (and stuff):

link to the sandbox in question (and to the diff containing the sources, as it's quite prone to change)
the unseen64 feature from the article. while i don't think it's debatable that it's an inappropriate external link, i feel it may need to be evaluated separately as a source
i'll be creating a draft soon, using at least those sources. granted, my vote will still be to start over, as i don't think i can finish a draft in less than... a lot of time

i think i'm forgetting a delsort category... consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 02:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article isn’t in such a bad shape to require a TNT. I haven’t made any search for sources but if the nom claims that they have some sources in their sandbox, why are we here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT is an essay in any case and not an AFD close. I would suggest the nominator to withdraw and just implement their changes into the article. IgelRM (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

eh, fair. will be doing that, but unless someone else is in the mood to close as withdrawn before then, i'll let the afd go on for 3 more days (that is, until february 4) in case more stuff is found while i'm sleeping like a log. still, i don't think a lot of the current article will survive... consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 23:03, 1 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.

DYTL-TV

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

This station is not exist. Myrabert01 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If a television or radio station closes permanently ("goes dark"), that doesn't mean it ceases to be notable. Once notable, always notable. Notability is not temporary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the nominator is not asserting that the station lost notability for being defunct (though the article makes no claims about any closure), but that it is a hoax — the nomination appears to be a follow-up to a declined {{db-hoax}}. That said, the decliner, B (talk · contribs), did say that any AfD nomination should explain there why/how it was a hoax (e.g. evidence that this station does not exist) — I don't think a flat "is not exist" assertion is sufficient. That said, however, this has been tagged as unsourced since February 2017 (almost as soon as it was created), so even keeping this should probably require actual sourcing of some kind, even if to refute any "hoax" claims — and the Philippine broadcasting topic area is rife with insufficient sourcing and GNG failures. (That means I can't really offer an opinion at the moment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find sources in GSearch, GNews, GNews Archives and GBooks. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Wcquidditch noted, coverage by broadcasting stations is generally limited, as they are not widely discussed. However, this particular station is local, and I don't believe local stations are usually considered notable unless they have distinguishing factors that set them apart. The article’s unreferenced content fails to show any such uniqueness. Given that notability is determined by WP:GNG, and no substantial coverage exists, I support deletion despite the industry's overall lack of coverage. AstrooKai (Talk) 02:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a list of licenced television stations on the website of National Telecommunications Commission, the Philippines broadcasting regulator, the equivalent of the Federal Communications Commission in the United States. DYTL-TV does not appear on that list. I struck my previous keep !vote. See https://ntc.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2024/LIST%20OF%20AUTHORIZED%20BROADCAST%20STATIONS/TV/TV-List-July-2024.pdf Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXNL-TV

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

This station is not exist. Myrabert01 (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Philippines. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If a television or radio station closes permanently ("goes dark"), that doesn't mean it ceases to be notable. Once notable, always notable. Notability is not temporary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the nominator is not asserting that the station lost notability for being defunct, but that it is a hoax — the nomination appears to be a follow-up to a declined {{db-hoax}}. That said, the decliner, B (talk · contribs), did say that any AfD nomination should explain there why/how it was a hoax (e.g. evidence that this station does not exist) — I don't think a flat "is not exist" assertion is sufficient. (That said, any refutation of the "hoax" claim would require the beefed-up sourcing that probably would also be necessary to truly justify keeping — the Philippine broadcasting topic area is rife with insufficient sourcing and GNG failures. That means I can't really offer an actual opinion at the moment.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find sources in GSearch, GNews, GNews Archives and GBooks. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Wcquidditch noted, coverage by broadcasting stations is generally limited, as they are not widely discussed. However, this particular station is local, and I don't believe local stations are usually considered notable unless they have distinguishing factors that set them apart. The article’s unreferenced content fails to show any such uniqueness. Given that notability is determined by WP:GNG, and no substantial coverage exists, I support deletion despite the industry's overall lack of coverage. AstrooKai (Talk) 02:50, 3 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]

Paolo Bergamo (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire (Marvel Comics)

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

Entirely non-notable subject with no significant coverage I could find in a BEFORE. Though there's a few subjects in the Marvel Comics lore that relate to vampires (Such as Blade (comics) and Morbius the Living Vampire, the topic of Marvel's specific incarnation of vampires is just entirely non-notable. All mentions of vampires in sources I could find are just discussing characters who happen to be vampires, like the aforementioned Morbius, and notability is not inherited from these characters. Most of the article is just overly detailed in-universe information, so I don't see much need to keep the article around, but if there's a valid merge/redirect target, I would not be against a very light merge or redirect per AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:07, 1 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, and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Nice" find, a major piece of WP:FANCRUFT with next to zero WP:GNG, I am afraid. I am find of saying 'redirect this somewhere', but I can't figure out what to do here. This is great stuff for fan wikia, but sadly, I can't find anything here of use for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - There are plenty of sources on notable Marvel characters who are or are related to vampires (for example, the mentioned Blade and Morbius), but there is not really coverage in reliable sources on the overall concept of the "vampire" in Marvel Comics or how they are distinctively notable from general depictions of vampires in fiction. There is not a single non-primary source being used here, and so the article seems to be nothing but taking plot information from different comic stories and trying to cobble a topic together from those. At best, this could maybe be used as a redirect to Vampires in popular culture, where vampires appearing in Marvel Comics is mentioned? Rorshacma (talk) 18:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable fancruft. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the hidden races section of Features of the Marvel Universe in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE while also listing the brief information on the different vampire sects. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Doesn't pass the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Rtkat3 to WP:PRESERVE. There must be something that can be said about vampires in the Marvel universe even if it's only a statement in the hidden races section. Archrogue (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Records

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

Article only covers some releases from the label, nothing about the company itself. BEFORE reveals nothing, save for a store by the same name. A clear failure of WP:NORG. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, and New Zealand. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 20:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Universal Music New Zealand. There are problems with the nomination - record labels exist to release albums, so a label page mainly covering the artists makes perfect sense, and we should look to WP:MUSIC rather than ORG for guidance on music-related topics. WP:MUSIC 5 gives a sense of what an important label is, and this label, in my view, would only squeak by; it didn't operate for a very long time, and it primarily released the output of three artists (Annabel Fay, Goldenhorse, and Opshop) - but those three artists are famous in New Zealand. There is encyclopedic interest in linking these artists together and in providing basic information about their label's activity, and I think the best place for that is on the page of the current parent label of Siren, Universal Music New Zealand. Chubbles (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Swanson

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

Unclear if this individual is notable enough for own article - does not appear (in my view) to fulfill standards re: notability for creative professionals WP:Author. Is already mentioned in the Secretly Group article. A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Management, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. He is mentioned in recent news stories about his labels. There are few in-depth stories that I could find. All the same, given the existing sources and others 1, 2, 3 ... maybe just clears the bar. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:28, 1 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. ✗plicit 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ocient (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Entirely promotional and does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Sources are WP:ORGTRIV. I don't see a pass of WP:NCORP. Since this was created just a year after it was previously deleted and does not appear to be notable, I support salting so future creating efforts need to go through AfC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed many of the extra sources, but the remaining sources are just "business as usual" reporting primarily on investment. There is not much content regarding the products nor anything notable about the company. As this was previously deleted I think that SALT is not an unreasonable solution. Lamona (talk) 03:44, 4 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.

Bellevue Kandy

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

per WP:NACTOR, no sources provide coverage about the actress. The article is also littered with fake references FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article a bit. She at least meets WP:GNG, and probably WP:NCREATIVE, though I have not checked for reviews of all the films she has produced (there is a list in an earlier version of this article, but the current article only names two she received award nominations for in 2022). The sources do provide coverage of her, as suggested by their titles: "Zoom sur la meilleure scénariste de la RDC : Belinda Kikusa Kandi dit « Bellevue », la Femme sage"; "Belinda Kandy dit « Belle Vue », apporte une nouvelle touche dans le cinéma congolais"; "Bellevue KANDY | 50 Femmes qui inspirent"; ). "L'actrice comédienne Belinda Bellevie Officiel est à deux doigts d'instaurer un nouveau record historique dans le cinéma congolais". (Note both her professional and real names used with variations in spelling.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 1 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. ✗plicit 23:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Peterson

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find any coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG, other than a few sentences on team-specific blogs (1). JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Basketball. JTtheOG (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any coverage of Peterson individually. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Georgia (U.S. state), North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 January 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!} 22:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charlotte Hornets#Personnel where there is a contextual mention as a plausible search term per WP:ATD-R. Left guide (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd oppose a redirect given assistants can change teams quite often, including to other levels such as college where there usually is not a personnel listing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 3 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.

Angel Meléndez and the 911 Mambo Orchestra

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

Not seeing anything that would make this a pass under WP:BAND. No in depth reviews, charting records or significant awards or recognition. it lacks significant, extensive coverage of the BAND, making it difficult to assess their notability. AgusTates (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified Grammy nomination meets WP:BAND. Non-trivial secondary coverage also available [83], [84], and [85]. ResonantDis_tortion 11:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jervisgate: How an X Factor auditionee is at the centre of a Gay Twitter civil war

[2] 
Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.
"Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
"Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.
Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[3] Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[4] Gould, Jim; Rudman, Jim; Gregory, Clive; Zucchi, Louise; Downing, Mark; Peters, Carole; Clarke, Heather; Kapur, Updesh (1 February 1986). "Miracle escape of Shuttle Echo Mike". Leicester Mercury. Leicester, Leicestershire, England. p. 11. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.

[5] Byrne, Gerry (2 February 1986). "'Wind shear' may have caused Aer Lingus crash". Sunday Tribune. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via British Newspaper Archive.

[6] "Aer Lingus crash: first report". Long Eaton Advertiser. Long Eaton, Derbyshire, England. 9 May 1986. p. 3. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[7] "Aer Lingus crash: 'The pilots were heroes'". Nottingham Evening Post. Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, England. 20 January 1988. p. 1. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[8] Kelly, Andrew (20 January 1988). "Aer Lingus Plane Crash". RTÉ. Retrieved 18 January 2025.

[9] Webster, Louise (21 January 1988). "Plane crash probe | Villagers call for quicker inquiries". Evening Telegraph. Derby, Derbyshire, England. p. 7. Retrieved 18 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.

[Davies1975-06-09-3] Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.

[Brayfield1975-05-28-4] Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.

[Day-Lewis1975-05-29-5] Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 1

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.