Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 08	February 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Brian Levey

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

Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Let'srun (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inoxoft

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

Likely to fail WP:NCORP KH-1 (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the strength (or rather weakness) of the sources. BD2412 T 23:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to satisfy WP:NCORP. References are just passing mentions or self published. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clutch.co is a well-known and trusted platform for evaluating IT service providers, and Inoxoft’s high ranking there shows its strong reputation and credibility in the industry. Combined with its international client base, this highlights the company’s notability. FactoidSeeker (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ARTTS International

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

A declined prod with the reason there is coverage in Proquest. 1 google news hit and 1 line mentions in google books indicates WP:ORG is not met. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Radio, Television, Organizations, Education, and England. LibStar (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict, who mentioned the PQ coverage. -Mushy Yank. 09:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found two substantial articles about this organisation (2 and 3 columns, in The Stage and the Hull Daily Mail), along with many reviews of the plays written, produced and performed by its students. The company won a Fringe First award in 1994. I will add sources and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Inserra

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and does not meet guidelines of WP:NGYMNAST, which appears to be the purported claim to fame. Citations are brief mentions at best with a search uncovering no significant coverage of subject. GauchoDude (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, de-PRODed by Ingratis without addressing any of the issues raised. Adding for awareness. GauchoDude (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - PRODs are for uncontroversial deletions only. There is enough here to suggest the possibility of notability, and that deletion might not be uncontroversial, so more eyes on the article would be beneficial. See WP:PROD and WP:ATD. I have no other opinion on the article or the subject. Ingratis (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary. Adding for awareness. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this is uncontroversial as stated in the PROD summary. It squarely falls under WP:DEL-REASON as the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. More than happy to go through the process with as many eyes as needed. While I haven't gone through this process as many times as others, usually when I encounter a WP:DEPROD there is some sort of evidence provided to counter the PROD which wasn't done here so it's outside what I've typically experienced. GauchoDude (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page clearly meets notability requirements.

This athlete is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men’s pair from the United States to final in a world championship. Sources below:

https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

https://www.aicag.edu/alumni-stories/68-alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

Subject also qualifies as notable as he won his country's “senior all-around or individual event finals national championship while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships” twice in a row, in 2009 and 2010 - https://usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2601:140:8400:4320:4D9A:9A66:A637:9E47 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This gymnast is notable due to being both the first elite acrobatic gymnast from Texas ever as well as the first men's pair from the United States to final in a world championship.

Sources below:

[1]https://www.nelson.edu/news/alumna-brandi-lewis-trains-mens-pair-champions/

[2]https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/athletes/bio_detail.php?id=32153

[https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/https://usagym.org/history/u-s-acrobatic-worlds-rosters/

Subject qualifies as notable because

"Subject won their country's senior all-around or individual event finals national championship in 2009 and 2010 while competing for a country that qualified a full team into the most recent Olympics or senior World Championships"

https://+usagym.org/history/championships-acrobatic/ 2603:8080:7400:223D:9C97:5C6A:6714:DDD7 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources support notability, which requires coverage be independent. JoelleJay (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Point of clarification on the previous user above JoelleJay's argument stemming from WP:NGYMNAST - The assumption of significant coverage applies only to cases of artistic gymnasts, as stated in the first line. Regardless of the assumption, each individual subject must be held to WP:SIGCOV. GauchoDude (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanel ready-to-wear collection

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

Oddly promotional, florid prose and WP:NOTCATALOG PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this was written by an established Wikipedian, Lisacarolinamartinez, as part of a special interest in fashion, an area where we are severely limited. We have tons of Good articles on games, wars, reality TV, and comics, but our article on dress code, for example, has been languishing for years. The sourcing is fine. I'm getting the idea that some folks just don't like the writing style and don't want to try to fix it. Is this really TNT worthy? Really? Bearian (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG and has many reliable sources. Based on the content of this article, having a separate article from the main Chanel article is appropriate. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to express my gratitude to everyone who has voted to keep this article. Admittedly, I’ve fallen behind in recent years—between graduate school, work, and family obligations, but I remain committed to developing this special interest category (Wiki Fashion Project). I will prioritize updating this month!

I am appreciative for those who recognize the merit of this subject and have provided supportive feedback. As others have pointed out, there are hundreds, if not thousands of articles devoted to games, wars, comics, etc., while fashion remains severely underrepresented.

I would also argue that the need for this category is increasingly imperative with so much information being hidden behind paywalls. I’ve made a concerted effort to research this (and other articles) thoroughly, including as many relevant citations as possible. And while I realize the industry verbiage sometimes feels more subjective, I’ve tried to limit that by focusing on specific details and indicating with direct quotes, where applicable. Lisacarolinamartinez (talk) 05:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG Article needs to be cleaned up but believe it is appropriate to keep. Barrettsprivateers (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Beyond RELIABLE by a country mile. This article has the perfect balance between being referential without being to PROMOtional and many of our other article spaces could take cues from this article. Nate • (chatter) 04:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primo Desiderio

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

No indication of importance. BEFORE reaveals no RS of substance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete no sources and no indication of importance.~~ Anktjha (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Far from my area, yet there seems to be some mentions (via Ebsco) that suggest Desiderio was a well-known skateboarder in the 1980s eg "Pro Skate Couple: Primo Desiderio ("Primo" slide, landing "Primo") and Diane Veerman". Eric Stricker. '84 Versus '04. TransWorld Skateboarding, Nov 2004, Vol. 22, Issue 11; "more like Primo Desiderio, whose routines were all about the music". Little, Monty. The Zen of Freestyle, 2. Concrete Wave. Winter 2015, Vol. 14 Issue 3, p74-79; "A few big names from the '80s showed up, including Primo Desiderio and Per Welinder": Souney, Jared. FLATLAND LIFEAFL ROUND FOUR .Ride BMX. Apr2001, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p134 and a couple of others. Far from significant coverage, but suggest that such coverage might exist if the right sources were searched. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From Google Books, [3] has 4 or 5 paragraphs on Primo Desiderio plus 3 pages of instructions as to how to do one of the tricks he invented. Several other book hits for ""Primo Desiderio" skateboard" but no preview available for them. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very difficult to find sources because his name means "first wish". Here he is on the BBC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGpBbk-jRrc Polygnotus (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regan Oey

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

I'm not convinced that the article on this former child actor demonstrates that he meets WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I came across this as an unsourced BLP last August, at which point it was already tagged with notability as an issue. I added five refs and changed the notability tag to be more specific. Oey has only had one lead role so doesn't meet the criterion on NACTOR about multiple significant roles, and there is not much coverage of him. Article has recently been expanded, refs added and the notability tag removed. I am still unsure that he meets GNG. Five of the new refs do not mention Oey. Tacyarg (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Tacyarg (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a general rule, I've tended to support deleting articles about child actors. Often they were pushed into acting by well-meaning parents, but they didn't want to do it. I even stepped aside and didn't oppose when a friend/neighbor/constituent's article was proposed for deletion. In this case, he's become a completely anonymous college student in Canada. He hasn't even done a comedy show. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Morgado

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP article about a voice actor that appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I've been unable to find any significant coverage (let alone in independent reliable sources.) Refs are only mentions among cast lists for multiple programs, this short interview on a user-generated fansite that is not about the actor, and this confirmation that his name was included as a foley artist in the list of names for a sound editing Emmy nomination for a tv show. Still doesn't appear to meet notability criteria as found in the previous AFD deletion. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Inherited notability from his roles and most of listed sources are unreliable or possibly user generated. MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kauchani Bratt

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

Seems to fail WP:NACTOR. Janhrach (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and California. Janhrach (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rez Ball#Cast: and undo the redirect when the filmography has more films to add. -Mushy Yank. 22:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: While I agree it fails WP:NACTOR, I do see it potentially becoming more notable in the future, so draftify seems like the best option for now. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Therinia spinicauda

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

GBIF calls this "doubtful" and COL says only "potentially valid". I think it may be WP:TOOSOON to have this as an article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this may be a misinterpretation. AFAIK "potentially valid" is the ground state of validity, and the majority of accepted species are so described (the ICNZN glossary defines it as An available name which is not objectively invalid). The Global Lepidoptera Index has no problem with the taxon, and that is the source that we normally defer to for this group. So we are left with GBIF stating that there is an Orthographic variant and Published earlier than parent name, without seeming to provide any further details. For a species that has been described either 100 or 200 years ago, I think I would want to see better evidence of issues before pulling the article, thus I'd say keep based on present information. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Srampickal Ittan Mappilai

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

Non notable family member. The listed references are almost entirely self published sources. Most probably made as a vanity page by the family members as the editing is almost exclusively by one person. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 18:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 18:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supranet

AfDs for this article:

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

Following a recent AfD closed as "no consensus", one editor has consistently refused to accept that consensus. Little has changed in the article in the last month or so, but perhaps a second AfD will reach a wider audience and a more convincing conclusion. The article is marked for SPIP and peacocking. Sources exist, but secondary and tertiary sources (to this concept rather than the company SupraNet Communications) are thin on the ground. Lithopsian (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lithopsian (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. see Talk:Supranet#WP:SPIP for an extended discussion. I oppose a redirect to VPN (suggested at the previous AFD) on the basis that "supranet" meaning "VPN" is not what the current article means, so any potential links to the page would get redirected to a page that doesn't have the same meaning (not that I have checked if any of these links exist; I suspect not).

Paging @Jamarr81 as they've been active in previous discussions. User:JarJarInks has also participated before but has asked not be involved in further discussions. themoon@talk:~$ 09:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The issue here is that two different parties have used the word "supranet" in different contexts with different meanings. This makes discussion about a singular concept of a "supranet" confusing, because the article describes multiple definitions of a supranet that aren't related to each other. We could redirect to Virtual private network or delete. I don't have a strong preference either way. I do not think that this should continue to exist as a standalone article, however. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pi network Project

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency project. Electricmemory (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this page be deleted? Pi is invented by the professor who teaches all of Stanford’s blockchain courses, is one of 20 companies listed as a member on cs.Stanford.edu and has received billions of dollars in VC funding. This will be the biggest crypto project ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.106.176 (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes I support this project it shouldn't be deleted 2409:408A:3E39:EB4D:0:0:2DCB:3218 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes I support Pi network it should not be deleted.its a wonderful project 103.100.17.16 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most, if not all, references fail WP:SIRS. UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Heartland F.C. season

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

No significant coverage on the subject and most-preferbaly should be merged to Heartland F.C. page. Similar ongoing discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024–25 Heartland F.C. season. Per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NEVENT. Jamiebuba (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Jamiebuba (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with the other one up for deletion, this is 100% notable (Nigerian league gets consistent significant coverage in Nigeria), but only has one source and two sentences of information along with an infobox. If it can be fleshed out it should be easily kept, but it's gone in and out of draftspace, so I'm not sure that is the best option. SportingFlyer T·C 19:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mallorca

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article only cites one news source. Apart from that, the only sources I can find are from the DEA's own website. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Police. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not looking everywhere that you can. The World Wide Web is not the whole world. There's a paragraph on this that is more detailed than this article, that can be used to expand it, at USDEA 2008, p. 180 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSDEA2008 (help); and also coverage in the entry at Kleiman & Hawdon 2011, p. 764 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKleimanHawdon2011 (help). At worst this is a merger to some larger article about USDEA anti-money-laundering operations, as at least one other source lumps it in with the likes of Money Trail Initiative, Operation Cali Exchange, and Operation Plata Sucia, showing that being part of a larger subject is how the world knows it. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Kleiman, Mark A. R.; Hawdon, James E., eds. (2011). "Tandy, Karen". Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. Vol. 1. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412976961.n336. ISBN 9781412976954.
- United States Drug Enforcement Administration (2008). Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2008. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT since it lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It made the rounds as part of the regular news cycle in June [4], and there's a tiny paragraph a few months earlier [5]. but not much else. If the only significant coverage afterwards is a paragraph in the USDEA's own publication, that's not enough for NEVENT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Uncle G are you arguing to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's covered in another encyclopedia's entry on her, I think it would make sense to merge to Karen Tandy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Plan Colombia, the correct name of the operation. — Maile (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Al-Harbi

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

Deleted before. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Only played 142 minutes in the highest Saudi league, plus some more on lower levels. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Security Council Resolution 600

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

Is every UN resolution inherently notable? This article has only one source, and perhaps it and other articles on UNSC resolutions that could easily be summarized should be redirected to a parent article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In general, I would say that all UNSC resolutions are per se notable, but it is not completely unreasonable to ask the question from time to time regarding specific ones (although notwithstanding some WP:BEFORE, please, and bearing in mind that the state of an article does not bear upon notability WP:NEXIST). In this specific circumstance, at the time Nauru was not a member of the UN, which meant it could not access the ICJ without special procedure under advisement of the UNSC to the UNGA. Without this resolution, recommending the conditions the the general assembly should adopt in inviting Nauru to become a state party to the ICJ, Nauru would not ulimately have been able to bring its case against Australia two years later regarding the impact of phosphate mining; Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru. So there is a certain degree of exceptionalism to this particular resolution (as there is in fact usually with all of them). Further background on the resolution here: [6]. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Environment, Oceania, and Australia. Goldsztajn (talk) 10:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to Nauru or suitable target.~~
@Goldsztajn makes essentially an WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument which can be summarized as being that the resolution led to the accession to the ICJ, which led to the Phosphate case. Which is appealing, except that there seems to be nobody drawing the connection between the UNSC's actions in 1987 and the filing of the suit a few years later. Meaning, for example, a search for (phosphate and nauru and "international court of justice") gets many hits but adding "resolution 600" gets no hits.
If further sources can be found, happy to reconsider but at this point this article seems likely to contribute about a sentence or two to the Nauru article which is about as much as it demonstrably deserves. Oblivy (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All UNSC resolutions have an effect in internartional law, they form part of the analysis of many aspects of studies of international law. In the case of UNSC resolution 600, the significance is the fact that to date only five countries have become state party to the ICJ statute without being members of the UN. The sourcing already posted about discusses the specific elements relevant to Nauru. Robert Kolb's "The International Court of Justice" (2014) specifically discusses the general circumstances that led to UNSC Resolution 600 (and the others preceeding it). This is also discussed in Zimmerman et al's "The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary" (2019). The resolution is discussed in Cesare Romano's "The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes" (2000). Finally, see Ramon E. Reyes Jr's 1996 article "Nauru v. Australia: The International Fiduciary Duty and the Settlement of Nauru's Claims for Rehabilitation of Its Phosphate Lands" in the New York Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law (Vol. 16, No.s 1&2, p.20): "According to Article 93(2) of the Charter, a state that is not a member of the United Nations may become a party to the Statute on conditions "determined by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council." After such a recommendation, 'the General Assembly accepted Nauru as a party to the Statute of the ICJ. As a party to the Statute, Nauru was able to bring suit against Australia in the ICJ." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good argument, which I accept, about the importance of this process that gave Nauru the ability to invoke ICJ jurisdiction. The article is about Resolution 600, however, which is a short statement acknowledging the result. The context and process are not addressed. I looked at Reyes and Romano which discuss the process but not the resolution. For the other two, I've done what should be full-text searches at Google Scholar (article partial title and "resolution 600") and I am not seeing hits.
An article on the phosphate case would be of value to the Wikipedia, and the ICJ-membership story could be part of that, but on ordinary notability principles I don't see this article as a keep. Oblivy (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's SIGCOV in multiple RS, the GNG is clearly satisfied. I may not have understood you properly, but notability is not based on an assessment of whether "context and process are not addressed", it is based on the existence of sourcing, not the state of the article. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you did misunderstand, or I didn't explain clearly, or both. My point about the "context and process" was that your citations above are about the chain of events that led to Nauru joining and bringing the phosphate case. The article subject -- the resolution -- is a link in that chain of events not discussed in significant detail in multiple RS's. AFAIK, there is no SIGCOV, no GNG, no extant sourcing about the resolution to rely on for a keep vote. Oblivy (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article does not meet the WP:GNG criteria. Pollia (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that every UN Security Council Resolution [500 to 599], and from [601 to 700] has a page. I recognize that this is an wp:otherstuffexists argument but (a) that's an essay, and (b) 199/200 equivalent things exist seems like a pretty strong argument the community wants these stubs to exist.

Separately I have created an article for Nauru v Australia as the topic was not well covered in the main article. I'll de-orphan the resolution page by linking to it there.

Thanks to @Goldsztajn for holding my feet to the fire on this. Oblivy (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Proto-Indo-European language

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

To quote User:Austronesier, who is a professional linguist: 90% of the article is SYNTH, OR, Y-haplo-cruft. Obviously in good faith, but mostly amateurish. The very title "Northwestern Proto-Indo-European language" is a giveaway for the amateurishness of the whole thing: if NW IE is a thing, the common ancestor of the subgroup should be "Proto-Northwestern Indo-European". When stripped of OR and SYNTH, it doesn't pass GNG. While the idea of some kind of NW IE has been occasionally brought up by scholars, its scope varies from author to author, so there is hardly SIGCOV for a coherent topic. [7] I concur with his assessment that this grouping is rarely discussed in the academic literature on PIE (thus making it unworthy of a standalone article), and that this article suffers from unfixable SYNTH issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Science, Archaeology, and Europe. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. until this is a concept accepted by at least some scholars with a clear scope, there's not really any way to write an article on the topic without OR/SYNTH. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No citations are given for the "reconstructions", and no explanation of how the posited proto-NWIE forms are derived from proto-Indo-European. I do not have access to the one source included which uses the term North-West Indo-European (or the German term for that), Oettinger's "Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Nordwest-Indogermanischen". I note in Google Scholar that it has only 15 citations. I note that one of those (A Storm of Words: A Song of Sheep and Horses Book 3) is not included as a reference in this article, although a source by the same author, Carlos Quiles, on population genomics, archaeology, and ethnolinguistics, is included. A Storm of Words does actually name a North-West Indo-European proto-language, but says it is the ancestor of Italic, Celtic, Germanic, and Balto-Slavic (my emphasis) - which is not mentioned at all in this article, and should be if it's a serious article about proposed daughter proto-languages between PIE and subgroups like Italic, Celtic, Germanic, etc. It should also refer to other hypotheses for similarities between Italic, Celtic and Germanic subgroups, such as contact between them, which are considered in articles by Lutz [8] and van Sluis [9] among others. So, no WP:SIGCOV of this proto-language, and the issues of possible contact or common development between these Indo-European subgroups is already (and more appropriately) covered to some extent in their existing WP articles. (Also, language does not follow genetics, as in fact the map of Distribution of the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b clearly shows!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree partly with Sawyer777, in that without at least a few scholars accepting the model, it's basically synthesis. I also partly agree with RebeccaGreen, insofar as the largest sections of a unified morphology and lexical system are completely unsourced. I also agree that there is much more scholarly support that Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic languages are a clade. I'm not going to quibble about my disagreements otherwise, because they don't matter here. Bearian (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isioma Humanitarian Foundation

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Previously moved to draft but moved back to mainspace by creator. Sources are Paid sources maybe in the future maybe notable. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When a newspaper article is quite favourable towards a subject, that's a hint – but no more than a hint – that money has changed hands. It could just be that the article's writer is inexperienced or too easily impressed by a celebrity. I don't think we can safely dismiss all the references as paid. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant and valid secondary sources to prove WP:ORGDEPTH. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sade Balogun

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

Article about a non-notable business person. Sources are Paid-sources or promotional sources, the sources contain ostentatious words. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are questionable and promotional; they do not appear to be reliable and independent. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There’s no major usable sources. this is not independent of the subject and this only (aside from the AI-tone) cannot be used to establish notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Filo

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

Redirect to List of Slovakia international footballers as an ATD. He only played one match at international level, and secondary sources are limited to routine announcements (transfer and injury). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 9 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꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an exceptional story, but at the same time not a routine occurence either, to go on trial with Leeds United and lose the opportunity because of injury/surgery. [10] [11] [12]. (The injury/surgery cut the international career short too.) Lots of other bits of coverage. Geschichte (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Geschichte sources. Svartner (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SME mentions him going on trial with Matúš Kozáčik but fails short in-depth. 24hod is an injury announcement. Nový čas seems decent but multiple sources that go beyond routine coverage are required for this article to be kept. This seems like another case of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – A single appearance for the national team in a friendly match, where he played 45 minutes without making an impact, and interest from Leeds United do not make him a notable player. Any football club can scout dozens or even hundreds of players, but that doesn't automatically make each of them stand out.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources/arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 16:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Abbas

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he is a surgeon but I don't believe it is enough to meet WP:BIO. Also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Medicine, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, I was able to confirm that Maher Abbas the Olympian and Maher A. Abbas the ~~acclaimed Stanford cardiologist~~ (surgeon) are the same person and added to the IP editor's claim with that. Abbas' work and books have been cited in at least 36 different articles on newspapers.com, some going into detail about his life, see for example "Olive oil full of healthy fats". Iowa City Press-Citizen. 16 Aug 2000. p. 21. Retrieved 2 February 2025. and "Tuscan oil cream of the crop but don't disregard the others Continued from page C1". The Toronto Star. 20 Oct 1993. p. 42. Retrieved 2 February 2025.. The assertion in nominator statement that Abbas doesn't meet SPORTCRIT isn't true because of the provided cite, and GNG is met making the subject-specific notability guidelines moot anyways. Edit: See below for coverage as an athlete, the sources confirm he's a surgeon but not a cardiologist. --Habst (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the links in the article describe him as a "colorectal and gastrointestinal surgeon" with zero mention of being a cardiologist in his experience listing. Is that the same person as the Stanford cardiologist you refer to? Cardiology is a completely different speciality. LibStar (talk) 04:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this source about Tuscan oil I would not regard as WP:SIGCOV, it's a few lines mentioning Abbas in a larger article and quoting him rather than coverage about him. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No you have not "confirmed" that the colorectal surgeon and cardiologist are the same person! None of the sources suggest this. The Scopus profile of the surgeon makes no mention of any cardiology work (which would be unheard of for a colorectal surgeon...), and the Anavara page says he only got his MD at Stanford and did his residency and practiced elsewhere, so would never be called a "Stanford" anything. The 1993 article would put him as a practicing cardiologist at 27 years old, which would mean completing medical school at 21 at the latest, all in the midst of training and competing as an Olympic athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JoelleJay. I think the strong keep is looking weak, by providing sources for a completely different person. LibStar (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar @JoelleJay, just to be clear, you think that there are two different "Maher Abbas" who are both Lebanese, studied at Stanford University at around the same time, and happen to work in the medical field? Because we know that at least one Maher Abbas who did all of those things is the Olympic athlete and article subject.

In the 1980s, most Olympic athletes were still amateurs who didn't train full time, so yes, it's entirely plausible he was a medical student while competing. --Habst (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously he is not both a colorectal surgeon and a cardiologist! JoelleJay (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the 2 sources that confirm he is a colorectal surgeon and not a cardiologist appear to be primary or a database. I don't think he meets notability based on his medical career. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, here's another article that talks about him going to medical school and nonetheless covers his athletic career enough to meet SIGCOV:

"Student to Participate In Olympics For Lebanon". The Atlanta Journal. 8 Sep 1988. p. 140. Retrieved 3 February 2025. "Abbas From Page 8". The Atlanta Journal. 8 Sep 1988. p. 143. Retrieved 3 February 2025.

Given that SIGCOV is met based solely on the athletic achievements, it seems like the identity issue, which again I think it would be highly unlikely that there are two Lebanese "Maher Abbas" in the medical field that studied at Stanford at the same time, would be a content dispute that can be resolved on the talk page unrelated to the deletion discussion. --Habst (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why doesn't his current profile not list any cardiology in his experience? I strongly contest this Maher Abbas is both the same cardiologist and colorectal surgeon. There is insufficient evidence to say they are the same person. LibStar (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He was a college senior in 1988. The idea that he became a practicing cardiologist by 1993 is laughable. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay @LibStar, that's fine, I've struck the cardiologist cites as we have SIGCOV clearly about the athlete anyways. Thanks for your fact checking on this. --Habst (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have WP:THREE good sources that cover Abbas? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LibStar, there should be many more sources about Abbas in The Emory Wheel as he was their first Olympian, but those archives are only available to Emory students. Maybe we can put in a query at WP:RX? --Habst (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the significant coverage in The Atlanta Journal. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [13][14] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I guess I should've made this clear, but I withdrew this nom 15 days ago. Noorullah (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you can only withdraw if no one else has !voted delete. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I understand that relisting more than 2 times is not recommended, it seems to be necessary in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2235

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

Only two entries, a year and a number, neither of which have specific entries at the relevant articles (3rd millennium and 2000 (number)). There was previously a redlink to an article deleted by PROD in 2011. Nothing else of note. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mathematics, and Disambiguations. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked OEIS to see if we could potentially write an article about the number 2235. The closest I found to a usable property was this, which isn't enough. I'd be inclined towards deletion if nothing else turns up. XOR'easter (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3rd millennium#23rd century, as for 2234 and 2236, and 2225 and 2245 (ie 1 and 10 more and less - seems to be established pattern). This was a valid dab page while Marantz 2235 existed, but not since it was deleted in 2011. PamD 08:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3rd millennium#23rd century per PamD. Even if an article about the number could be written, there's no need for DAB page right now and the proposed redirect target seems reasonable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3rd millennium#23rd century. There is no article on the year 2235 nor the number 2235, so this disambiguation page is useless. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Ultramarathon Cup

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable event especially since it hasn't been held since 2019. Poorly sourced. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think that the fact that a competition hasn't been held recently isn't evidence for or against notability, we need to look at the sourcing available. Looking up the German name "Europacup der Ultramarathons" I found these from the Schwäbische Post : [15] [16] [17] This is also a good recap from Aachener Zeitung : [18] Given that the series started in 1992 before the digital era, I think there are more newspaper sources to be found here. --Habst (talk) 13:53, 31 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) 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no discussion after previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Spears

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

Non-notable asset manager, lacks direct and in-depth coverage. Cited sources are mentions or primary sources (like SEC forms etc). Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. On one hand, he's been on many high-powered boards of both powerful companies that have been in the news lately, and prestigious institutions. On the other hand, almost nothing about his life or his actual career have been documented in secondary sources. Interesting. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Basso

AfDs for this article:

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

Some references were identified in the last AfD here, but most of them are quotes or brief mentions. There is no book review. None of them cover Basso in-depth and bio fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Finance, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. I understand why Trade2tradewell, with a special interest and optimism for encompassing all knowledge that were popular 17 or 19 years ago here, first created this. What I don't understand is why this is still here, after literally decades of AfDs and Prods to get rid of all these articles about clearly non-notable people. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article is failing WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PB987 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC) - WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536 B 02:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Pet Products Association

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

Can't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Best I could find is some churnalism in trade magazines ([19], [20], [21]) and a lot of sources citing their surveys (this is one of the only publications that contains anything beyond a namedrop). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Business, and United States of America. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These references are not enough for WP:NORG. A short directory entry and brief mentions of their surveys are not significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jyoti Singh (judge)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jyoti Singh (judge)

Jyoti Singh (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)} – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not a public figure - Indian judges are not public figures and are bound by code of values not to publicise themselves or to respond to publicity about them. Furthermore there is no SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE and has same rationale as deletion of Navin Chawla (judge) a contemporary equivalent level judge of same court. JudgeMistry (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable by virtue of her position. Inherently a public figure, despite whatever taboos against self-publicity may exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Judges and politicians are not inherently notable. WP:NPOL only gives presumptive notability because significant coverage usually exists for national and region-level politicians. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we're literally being sued for doing something similar with another Indian judge. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT: It is a very bad idea to have articles on High Court judges of India, especially of the High Court at New Delhi. The nominator is correct that rationale of HMJ Navin Chawla deletion logic should be followed for consistency. Not following that deletion discussion's outcome and reasoning only strengthens the argument that Wikipedia's editorial processes are arbitrary and inconsistent. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NJUDGE. She is covered here and here in-depth. 91.156.126.140 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: The second link is a word to word copy paste from the hon'ble judge's official CV on the Delhi High Court website (so irrelevant). The first link is a routine listing because the "roster" of the Delhi High Court changes every 6 months, and in 2024 the hon'ble judge was routinely assigned IP cases, as was also the other judge named. The Delhi High Court decides most of the complex IP cases of India, so this is a busman award for driving busses. FYI, HMJ Ms. Pratibha Singh is acknowledged to be the foremost IP judge of the Delhi High Court. NB: I have a declared conflict of interest being an officer of the court/s in question.अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added references and a bit more info, trying to save the page as she meets criteria for judges. Davidindia (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - although she held state wide office (Delhi HC) and was inducted into 50 most influential people by managing IP which adds to her notability but I didn’t find sig cov. In secondary sources apart from her appointment news. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A working judge, I don't see anything that would make this person stand out from the other thousands of judges on the planet. I can only find confirmation of the position, so no sourcing that helps show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:NJUDGE as a member of the Delhi High Court: "The Judges of High Court of Delhi (other than the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court) are appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, and on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi." RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: That is only in theory. In practice judges are either elevated from the Delhi Higher Judicial Services after serving as District judges, or handpicked lawyers are discreetly approached to be additional judges of the court. The actual decision is taken by a 5 member collegium of Supreme Court judges in an opaque and discretionary fashion involving horse trading, favouritism and nepotism. The President of India is a rubber stamp (unlike the US of A's). So IMHO Wikipedia can either have well researched articles on all judges of all High Courts or none. These random kind of stubby articles are akin to waving a red rag for bulls. अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: She does meet WP:JUDGE, but the coverages appears to be mostly WP:TRIVIAL and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Additional significant coverage would further solidify her notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article matches WP:NJUDGE. Pollia (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over half the sources cited onpage are self published (directly or indirectly) primary sources. There is no significant coverage independent of the judgments she delivers routinely as a working judge. Nothing in the article (as it stands currently) shows anything extraordinary or especially notable about this judge compared to her brother judge HMJ Navin Chawla whose very similar article was voted to be deleted. WP:NJUDGE by itself does not confer notability, it is merely an initial screening filter to weed out lesser judges, notability has to be established by significant independent coverage from reliable sources. Lastly by having articles about persons who possess power to threaten the encyclopedia you run the risk of justifying hugely problematic sentences like "She became the Senior Advocate in 2011" अधिवक्ता संतोष (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The coverage pertains to the brief references on her appointment as a judge of the Delhi High Court. And fails to meet WP:SIRS. Bakhtar40 (

talk) 05:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks signifance coverage for noticeabilty for solo article as a judge (one of many run of mill high court judges of India) BTSfangir1 (talk) 10:59, 10 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted after a "redirect" closure following a talk page request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. No need for merge. Gilligan's Island already has a section talking about the ship under Production. Maineartists (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gilligan's Island. — Maile (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but just for a three-hour tour, a three-hour tour. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Huttle

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

Does not pass WP:NCRIMINAL, his killing does not pass WP:NEVENT. Minor figure in a very large event and the killing does not make him more notable than the other ones. Not a lot here besides routine criminal proceedings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Crime. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - passes GNG in my view. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Vaurie Does he pass WP:BIO1E? No. Every source is about him being killed. His killing does not pass WP:NEVENT. Do we have articles on every news story that makes the news for a few days? PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like he's notable for two events. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Vaurie No, because he was never reported on for the first event. All sourcing is for one event (him getting shot) PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He received at least some coverage for his arrest: see [22]. Old Man Consequences (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chess strategy and tactics

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

Readers do not need to be told that "chess strategy and tactics" consists of "chess strategy" and "chess tactics". All this article does is fool readers into thinking Wikipedia has an article covering both together. If we ever do have an article for both of them, as Bruce has suggested, then we can bring this back. Kaotao (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no valid reason for a DAB page per WP:D2D. Chess strategy and chess tactics are clearly two separate concepts that need not be disambiguated. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not what a dab page is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leftover DAB page from a 18-year-old split. Disambiguation is unnecessary as searching for 'chess strategy and tactics' returns chess strategy and chess tactics in the first three hits. Preimage (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn (+ WP:HEY). (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adelante (1902)

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

This article has existed as a stub, more-or-less unchanged, for more than a decade. The only information this article provides is that the newspaper existed for less than a year and that it had a rivalry with a socialist newspaper in the same city. The cited sources give only passing mentions of the paper, and I haven't been able to find anything else on this newspaper (although that may be complicated by the fairly generic name of the newspaper). It seems to me that this article fails to meet notability standards for periodicals. Short of merging the trivial details in this article into the one on La Voz del Pueblo, I don't see any good targets for merging/redirecting this, so I'm proposing it for deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Politics, Social science, and Spain. Grnrchst (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia. If it were an essay repository, then the argument that this article article has existed as a stub, more-or-less unchanged, for more than a decade would be a valid reason for deletion; but it is not. When people are doing research, an encyclopaedia that allows the user to look up things like Adelante is useful. We need to be aware of recentism (a.k.a. nowism), which produces an article imbalance. If this newspaper had existed in 2022-23 there would be far more online sources readily available to editors seeking to improve the article. But with a newspaper that existed in 1902-03, most of those sources only exist in paper or microfilm format, and can only be found in the real world, and then only with a lot of time and effort.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for being a publication that disappeared 122 years ago, it does appear referenced in a lot of later works. It is quite easy to find more material to expand the article, I added two references now and will add a few more shortly and expand the article. --Soman (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw - Going to go ahead and withdraw this, as Soman has put together enough sources for the article to convince me this newspaper is notable enough; that the early works of Diego Martínez Barrio were published in the newspaper display its notability to me. Thanks for putting in the work to expand the article, it's a lot more informative now. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:28, 9 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.

Herman Mattson

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

WP:BEFORE shows zero sources about this person; thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding much about him. I note that Australian reports of the 1925 All Blacks matches often refer to him as "A. Mattson" - perhaps he used his middle name? The National Library of New Zealand has info that was a Bank officer with the National Bank of New Zealand, Auckland, and on the Executive Council of NZ Bank Officers' Guild in 1939. [23] (not that that would contribute to notability, but would round out a bio). In Papers Past, the NZ digitised newspapers, there are an article about an Alfred Mattson who was a champion dirt track rider selected for the Tourist Trophy Races on the Isle of Man in 1933 [24], and in 1935 a mention that Alfred Mattson held the NZ record for 500cc machines [25]. If that is the same person, perhaps some motor bike racing wins or records would add to his notability - someone may know or find more about that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The motorcycle / speedway rider was Alf Mattson. Paora (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesnt seem to have significant coverage from WP:SIRS BTSfangir1 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Paora for the clarification about the motorcycle / speedway rider. I would say Redirect to the 1925 New Zealand rugby union tour of New South Wales, but none of the articles about All Blacks tours seem to have lists of the team members. Surely that would be useful information, and a way to avoid having articles about those who were not notable but still enable readers of WP to find information? There are plenty of sources which name the members of the teams. (I am not offering to add such lists. I note with interest that WP articles on All Blacks tours are very poorly referenced, and many have no in-line citations, nor do they have any tagging. It looks like the Rugby Union wikiproject has a lot of work to do!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldogs Allstar Goodtime Band

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE. Deprodded for no reason at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technical pass on WP:MUSICBIO, two songs in the top 5 of a national chart, confirmed by secondary sources. Furthermore a ProQuest search identifies a number of results with coverage of this band, and there's also a sigcov bio on Audioculture. ResonantDis_tortion 13:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seems to be reliable at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a WP article for AudioCulture. The website appears to be a non-profit government-funded resource, partnered with the NZ national library, and the article on the Bulldogs Allstar Goodtime Band is under a byline of one of their named writers: Glen Moffat. ResonantDis_tortion 14:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it has the article, it doesn't mean they're reliable (New York Post has an article but is considered unreliable). Okay, it seems kinda. But is there any source that you can add aside from that? Surely that one is not enough. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a quick check on TWL and there is sigcov in the Dominion Post, from 2013, and in 2015. These both confirm the charting and provide evidence on the cultural placing of the subject within NZ musical history. Given the band were mostly active >50 years ago, failed to top the NZ singles chart solely due to being pipped to the post by David Bowie, played the Great Ngaruawahia Music Festival along with Black Sabbath, and beat one of NZ's biggest musical exports in a televised music contest, it is not unreasonable to presume further sources do exist. ResonantDis_tortion 16:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further coverage, confirming a Gold record, here in the Wanganui Chronicle. The NZ Music Awards also confirms a significant award: in 1974. The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO #1, #2, #3, #8, and #9. ResonantDis_tortion 08:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony (band)

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE. Deprodded last year without any reason at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per this secondary source, confirmed the group Ebony meets both WP:MUSICBIO#2 - national charting, and WP:MUSICBIO#3 - gold certified record. There is a sigcov profile of the band here, and there is evidence of sustained coverage through this 2024 article providing historical commentary of the impact of the group on the New Zealand political discourse from the 1970s. As such, there is encyclopedic value here that should be retained and expanded, though if a better target exists I'd be amenable to changing my !vote. ResonantDis_tortion 07:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnyman 2

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG per WP:BEFORE 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Review in Starburst; TimeOut has significant coverage; various reviews on experts' SPS websites. Merge with Bunnyman (film) is warranted anyway-Mushy Yank. 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 14:30, 9 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 procedural close‎. As this is a redirect and always has been, please start a discussion at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrivalli Bhamidipaty

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

Not a notable player Vecihi91 (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - this discussion would be better at WP:RfD Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 9 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.

Bassam Kawas

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

Declined prod. Information was added that he competed in 1991 Summer Universiade but I don't believe that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found several articles in Al Anwar covering Kawas including the fact that he was a cross country champion, not previously in the article. There's more at [26] under his Arabic name I'll have to comb through but I wanted to get this out first. The nominating statement says that SPORTCRIT isn't met, but it's actually fulfilled by the found coverage, which combined with WP:NATH (being a national champion) makes this a candidate to keep based on policy. --Habst (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which "found coverage" is significant? The source for his cross country championship says "Runner Bassam Kawas won the title", which is under no circumstances SIGCOV. It also doesn't say it's the "1992 Lebanese Cross Country Championships", it says "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship", and anyway winning a national title in athletics only suggests coverage if the subject has been ranked in the top 60 on the IAAF world leading list at the end of a given calendar year, which I don't see evidence for. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, the newspaper coverage amounts to SIGCOV because it can be combined per WP:BASIC. Because "open" in the context of athletics just means "open to all age groups", and the newspaper article was discussing the 1992 race, it's accurate to say that Kawas won the 1992 Lebanese XC championships, I worded it that way to match that of the other articles in Category:National cross country running competitions. Kawas ranked 53rd in the 800m at the '92 Olympics administered by the IAAF, but the subject specific notability guidelines are irrelevant if GNG is met anyways.
Because you know Arabic, can you post your interpretations of the other Al Anwar matches here or look for others, because the archive.org Arabic scans don't always get the flow of text correct? --Habst (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know that SPORTSCRIT requires a citation to a source containing SIGCOV. I will not explain this to you for the 30th time.
And no, the burden is on you to show the coverage you claim establishes notability. Single-sentence mentions and routine stats are worthless, so whatever you paste better be a lot more than that. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of respect for your contributions and hope you can extend me the same – Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that we work together to improve. I found the subject's native name and several newspaper articles about the subject in a language I don't speak, but the machine translations look promising to me. Do the Al Anwar matches here not constitute SIGCOV and thus fulfill SPORTCRIT? I'm happy to add the info to the article once we can get some good translations. --Habst (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
YOU need to paste exactly what you think is SIGCOV of this athlete. Search results do not demonstrate SIGCOV and do not satisfy SPORTCRIT, which requires a citation to a specific source. I am not going to waste my time writing up a source analysis for a bunch of search results that you are too whatever to even look at yourself, that is outrageously entitled. JoelleJay (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, Wikipedia P&Gs don't necessitate pasting text in a language I admit I don't understand, they actually say the opposite at WP:NEXISTS, by which we can presume notability by simply knowing that sources exist. I linked several textual matches from a reliable source in Al Anwar, so we know that these exist and it's valid for me to use NEXISTS for that reason.

I've done my best with machine translation and I even added a fact to the article based on one of the cites from An-Nahar here: "Annahar , 1992, Lebanon, Arabic" (in Arabic). Retrieved 4 February 2025., but the OCR isn't perfect. I don't know what else I can do without the help of a native speaker. Can you help if you know the language? --Habst (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have zero evidence that any of these sources are suitable and notability-indicating, and NEXIST does not "presume notability" at all anyway. And that source is the same utterly trivial six words of coverage from earlier, clearly not SIGCOV.
I don't read Arabic, you have the same access to translation tools as I have. Do your own work. JoelleJay (talk) 06:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, both Al Anwar and An-Nahar are both reputable newspapers, there's no evidence at WP:RSP that their suitability has ever been contested, in fact An-Nahar has been cited twice as a reputable source Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 430#Tahawolat a reliable Arabic journal looks like this An-Nahar and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_405 An-Nahar, a reputable daily newspaper in Lebanon, known for its reliable reporting.

I thought you could read Arabic because of the comments about "Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship" above, which were about the specific wording. Invoking WP:NEXIST is warranted here, and I'm open to incorporating more data from those sources as soon as we have a good transcription. It's not just about translation tools here, because the archive.org OCR effectively makes deciphering large blocks of text from these newspapers very difficult unless you know how to read the source text. --Habst (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: you are interpreting NEXIST as referring to the existence of any coverage, no matter how trivial, in RS, rather than the existence of notability-establishing ("suitable") coverage in RS? So, to you, someone having any RS coverage at all is enough to presume the subject is notable.....?
I've explained to you before how to copy-paste archive.org snippets of Arabic text into Google Translate. Yes it takes some effort if you want to expand the snippet beyond what is provided; if you aren't willing to do this to prove a given hit is SIGCOV, then don't claim any of those hits are SIGCOV! JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I don't think that's what NEXIST means and it's not how it's being invoked here. NEXIST is based on probability, because when you don't have the sources, the only thing you can do is say the likelihood of them existing. So how can we establish that notability-indicating ("suitable") sources exist with a high degree of certainty? Here's a checklist for this specific instance:

There are several text hits for the name. Are they mentioned in the context of athletics, i.e. referring to the subject? Yes, as far as I can tell. Are they part of advertisements? No, not based on the translated snippets. Are they trivial mentions? It doesn't seem that way from the translated snippets either, i.e. part of paragraphs, and keep in mind after a name is mentioned once it may be mentioned after using only the surname which wouldn't show as a text match.

Given that, yes it's valid to say that sources exist and I have linked the search result to them above. I actually already machine-translated all the matches but due to inaccurate OCR, the text is garbled and nonsensical when translated and copy/pasting doesn't fix the OCR issues. At some point, you have to rely on having a native speaker. --Habst (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NEXIST is there solely to make sure people are basing their assessment of notability on the sources they can find rather than only on the ones cited in the article. It is not supposed to be used to presume notability, and it definitely does not suggest that you can use unassessed search hits to assert that SIGCOV is likely.
If you think a six-word sentence in a routine results announcement isn't trivial coverage then you should not be evaluating sportsperson notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, yes, that's exactly how I'm using NEXIST in this discussion. I'm not sure how you can say that the 1992 An-Nahar snippet is only six words considering we have no access to the text on the rest of the page, and when I translate it based on the OCR the text comes out non-sensical. --Habst (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can be sure that it is a trivial mention, because the context is clearly routine results announcements! The translations are coming out garbled because they're literally uncontextualized sports stats rather than prose. JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, not all are sports stats, as you've shown below, and even paragraphs of content have shown up with unreliable character recognition for me. We also need to look for mentions of the last name قواص on the pages, because often times a full name is only mentioned once and we only have the context immediately surrounding that. --Habst (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I have translated all the search results and not a single one goes beyond a trivial passing mention, even when searching for just his surname. These were the only ones that had full sentences of prose:
Jump 1- Gaby Issa El Khoury (Al-Jammour) 0 meters. Runner: -1 Philippe Bejjani (Al-Jammour) 1.80. 00 meters: 1 Bassam Kawas (Al-Ansar) 10.41.01 minutes. He came in second. The Federation chose the runner Bassam Kawas to represent Lebanon in the Olympic Games, hoping that the Federation would also choose the runner Charbel Abi Tayeh...
The Mariamite Club Dik Al-Mahdi achieved a double victory in the Lebanese Open Cross-Country Championship for men and women; by taking first place in the race. Runner Bassam Kawas won the title of Lebanese champion for men and runner Solange Abi Ghosn won the title of Lebanese champion for women.
On participating in the Summer Olympic Games in Barcelona: The Minister of National Education, Dr. Zaki Mazboui, issued a decision based on the proposal of the Director General of Youth and Sports, Mr. Shawqi Attia, to form the following delegation: [List of athletes] Jumping: Christian Vervensis (ranked among the 4th in the world. Participated in the World Championship (1999). [...] Athletics: Runner Bassam Kawas (Lebanese champion in the 10084 and 1000 meters).
JoelleJay (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for your work translating these. There were 11 newspaper hits, so what can you see in the others? Part of my difficulty in translating these is that I can only get the text immediately surrounding my search term, and even then it's often garbled for a non-Arabic reader.

Is it possible that this sports administrator is him, shown here being interviewed for a Lebanese TV programme? --Habst (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The others are lists and stats, as should be apparent from the format the original text is in. I also searched his last name in every one of them. There is zero reason to expect anything more substantial than routine results coverage exists. And no I am not going to watch some facebook-hosted interview in Arabic because it doesn't matter whether it's him or not, it's unusable for GNG and would not suggest further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, based on the characteristics (see above, name present in prose, not only part of lists, likely more than mentions), combined with the fact that several hits are probably missing due to poor digitization of the text, I don't agree that only routine results coverage exists of this person. The fact that an interview is hosted on Facebook isn't at all disqualifying because Facebook isn't the publisher of the interview -- the Lebanese TV programme LFC Sports is. Many recent article hits (in Arabic) seem to be related to this position, so it's worth looking into. --Habst (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We know they are not more than mentions. Every single hit occurs within stats or lists, even the prose ones. They do not refer to him again later in the page because again, these are routine results announcements, not articles. NSPORT requires you to cite a source that we know for a fact has SIGCOV, that is absolutely not achieved with trivial mentions and totally baseless assertions that we can presume any further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, how can we know that they're not more than mentions without even having access to the entire page of digitized text, given the OCR issues and the fact that we both can't read the language?

Subject-specific notability guidelines like NSPORT are irrelevant if GNG is met, which can be fulfilled by NEXISTS. I haven't made any baseless assertions, I've actually linked full TV interviews and newspaper articles from reputable sources that we know cover the subject – demonstrating that suitable sources do exist. --Habst (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have access to the entire text. We know that his surname doesn't appear elsewhere on those pages outside of trivial mentions.
You have not linked a single source of SIGCOV. He meets neither SPORTCRIT nor GNG. How many times does this need to be repeated? You are insisting that his name merely appearing in newspapers that you can't figure out how to read means that they must be discussing him in further detail on those pages, while somehow not ever mentioning his surname again, and despite the context obviously being things like "Mithal Sahmarani (Al-Ansar), Bassam Kawas (Al-Ansar), Bilal Hathof (Al-Ansar)" and literal bullet-point lists. TV interviews of him are not secondary coverage and can be dismissed outright.
Source evaluation: 1 two passing mentions, his name in stats and his name in the delegates announcement N, 2 trivial stats N, 3 trivial stats N, 4 trivial stats N, 5 trivial mention N, 6 trivial stats N, 7 trivial
mention N, 8 trivial stats N, 9 trivial mention in list 10 trivial stats N, 11 trivial stats N. JoelleJay (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, would you be in a position to now cast a !vote in this AfD? LibStar (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay, You have not linked a single source of SIGCOV -- I don't agree with this (I've linked multiple) but more importantly this is a misunderstanding of the notability policy, which explicitly does not require links so long as it can be demonstrated that coverage exists otherwise.

If we have access to the entire page of text, then please paste or link the entire transcript. The archive.org full-text links don't preserve the flow of text, and search results only digitize the snippet of text directly surrounding the matching term. Without this access and without knowing the language, a source analysis would be impossible to perform.

The linked TV interview can also be considered secondary (non-primary) coverage, per Wikipedia policy and echoed by this comment from an administrator Special:Diff/1245933378: My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there. [...] Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? Because the interview isn't only about a match, it has to be considered as part of coverage. --Habst (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPORTSCRIT requires sportsperson articles cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to meeting GNG. Not a single such source has been identified. The refdump above has nothing but routine sports announcements; of the ones that are even in prose, I have provided the surrounding text demonstrating their triviality. His last name does not appear outside of brief passing mentions. A subject talking about himself in an interview is, obviously, not independent or secondary coverage of him (no, one editor's unsupportable opinion in some other AfD does not reflect "policy", much less overturn actual policy stating interviews are primary) and does not at all suggest additional coverage exists—this is on top of the fact that the interviewee, a youth soccer coach talking about coaching youth soccer, has not even been positively identified as the same person as this middle-distance runner (and the interview is hosted on a facebook page with no evidence of being from an independent RS news source!). JoelleJay (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could somebody other than Habst and JoelleJay please comment on this discussion, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could be notable, but there isn't enough sourcing to write an article, simple confirmation of event participation. It's not a guarantee to get an article as a participant at the Universade, only showing they could be eligible for one when decent sourcing is available. I can't find anything in Gnews or Books, but this was long before the Internet, so might be hidden away in a paper format somewhere... Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Vahidnia

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

The sources lack any indication of WP:GNG (significant coverage). Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ju-Jitsu International Federation

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

I believe a discussion is well needed after the appearance of many standalone pages of Iranian Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu athletes. (See:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Shafiei) I just uncovered a massive issue in wikipedia when talking about Ju-jitsu. For example, Ju-jitsu at the 2014 Asian Beach Games, Jujutsu at the 2013 World Combat Games and Ju-Jitsu World Championships, the Ju-jitsu is "Men's ne-waza". That's the loophole. Ju Jitsu (Newaza) is exactly Brazilian jiu-jitsu. See Jujutsu#Brazilian jiu-jitsu, and explained here by the subject's website itself https://jjif.sport/jiu-jitsu. Now that we established that they showcases Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu/JJ ne-waza matches (See:2024 Ju jitsu World Championship Greece) we can address that the level for their Ju-jitsu ne-waza is not recognized at all.[27] The consensus in the Jiu-Jitsu world is that World IBJJF Jiu-Jitsu Championship & ADCC Submission Fighting World Championship are the biggest Jiu-Jitsu events in the world with ADCC being commonly referred to as "the Olympics of grappling". Competing or getting a medal in the Ju-Jitsu World Championships for example, can be easily confused as a "world championship" win in Jiu-Jitsu, but the "Ju-Jitsu International Federation" is not even close to be regarded as a top Jiu-Jitsu. (Even highly competitive Jiu-Jitsu events such as NAGA have been deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Grappling Association for lack of independent coverage.) The organization has had notability issues since 2012/2013. [User:Lekkha Moun|Lekkha Moun]] ([[[User talk:Lekkha Moun|talk]]) 09:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Martial arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an international federation recognized by few organizations like GAISF (now AIMS), IWGA, OCA and probably few more. it's not just a random organization made by a private company or few individuals. They have few ju-jitsu styles under their umbrella, Fighting, Duo, Ne-waza. maybe some of their competitions are for amateurs but the federation itself is notable enough. if you google JJIF you can find enough coverage in other websites. even the IOC covers some of their competitions. Sports2021 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the other sport they host. I wanted to highlight and leave traces of a discussion about their BJJ/JJ ne-waza activities for future references, because BJJ is becoming a massive sport worldwide. If we keep this article, we sports contributors need to make a distinction between BJJ accomplishments in BJJ athletes. If we conclude that Ju-Jitsu International Federation is notable, it doesn't mean their BJJ/JJ newaza is.

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Ngā Taonga Tūturu ki Tokomaru

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

Only reliable coverage I can find is this: [28]

Don't see any other reliable SIGCOV of this school, PROD was contested. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your original PROD nomination said that you found two independent sources - what happened to the other one? Turnagra (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Manawa (Westgate)

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

Doesn't appear to meet GNG. The references are either non-independent or just passing coverage of the award but don't provide sigcov of the building itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Museums and libraries, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, I initially merged this into Westgate, New Zealand and if consensus is to not have a stand alone article it should be kept as a redirect for attribution. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demolition Records

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP. Previously PROD'd which was valid. Should not have been restored. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Europe, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Rojek

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

Fails WP:NMG, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Appears to be mostly a resume and self-promotional (WP:PROMO). No significant coverage in third party, independently published sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glane23,

Nothing in there seems to be self-promotional and all are verifiable facts (awards, compositions, album releases etc.)

I do not understand why you are suggesting the article to be considered for deletion, when it does exactly what any other artist page does on Wikipedia (lists accomplishments on their resume).

best,

Itzek Itzek1952— Note to closing admin: Itzek1952 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little to no coverage of this person in media that I can find, most albums are independent releases with only one on a semi-major label. Barely qualifies for NMUSIC. I don't see notability. Has never had a charted single, or any other quality we'd need for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Floyd protests in Wyoming

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

May not be notable, only cited in a few local news articles over a few days in 2020, no coverage since. Maybe a merge to "List of George Floyd protests in the United States" would be a better home for this content. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Wyoming. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears to be a list of George Floyd protests for every state in the USA: Category:George Floyd protests in the United States by state or territory. I agree a lot of these protests aren't notable enough for mention (WP:NOTNEWS), but the most notable ones from all states could be bundled into one, as per the nominator? Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep per GNG. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Another Believer. All fifty states' George Floyd protests articles are worthy of expansion; if you don't agree, just look at this map. Songwaters (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per above. Well cited, and could easily be expanded based on the abundant published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of published material available to expand this article. I just quickly added more about the Laramie protests which continued nightly for three weeks straight. Yuchitown (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - all "...in state" articles, into the List of George Floyd protests in the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. That would make the article WAY too long. Songwaters (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as nominator - maybe this and the handful of other place-specific articles that are essentially a list of "X people marched in Y city on June Z" could be merged into the "...in the United States" article (like Vermont, Maine, North Dakota, etc.), but not ones with more substantive and unique content (like for Chicago). I just think that we don't need multiple articles that are list of local news events that have no hope of growing into anything in the future, when they could easily be summarized into a main article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Also outside the scope of this discussion. Yuchitown (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States Changing myself to Merge above. Good article, but there are too many of these protests around the world to give them all a stand-alone article. — Maile (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up to "about 500 people" were in the most popular protest. Hundreds of people walking down a street with nothing else happening isn't enough for its own article. Anything notable should be listed in George Floyd protests. Dream Focus 06:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If numbers were the only metric of notability, there would be almost no Wyoming-related articles. Yuchitown (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Yuchitown. Eelipe (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States. No secondary sources cover the impact of these specific protests as opposed to others, and this is not independently notable from the broader George Floyd protests. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just added sources explaining how the Laramie protests took on local issues and maintained nightly protests for the three weeks straight. The sources are readily available. Yuchitown (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States – Per Thebiguglyalien. Votes for strong keep do not bring arguments with policy. Svartner (talk) 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States AgusTates (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Sockstrike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, opinion is divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Not sure if the vote should be struck out or not but one editor preferring to merge was blocked for sockpuppetry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, User:AgusTates has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Alon9393. Yuchitown (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of George Floyd protests in the United States. No sustained coverage of these protests by themselves. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wealth of coverage of these protests. I just added some today, but there's plenty more to draw from. The three-week-long protests in Laramie might be the longest public protests in Wyoming's history. The protests in Wyoming differ from protests elsewhere in that Wyoming is the least populated state in the country with one of the highest-percentage White populations. Yuchitown (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am also interested in expanding this article, though probably not in the next few days. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the list of protests in the United States. Each and every protest isn't notable, this far removed from the event. This is like 9/11 articles, we don't need details on every little thing that happened surrounding the event, most aren't more notable than the rest, so can be listed together. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG. The argument that it should be merged because there were a lot of protests is not a valid reason. Nor is the argument that not very many people attended. What matters is if GNG is met by significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Note to closing admin: the sockpuppet iVote should be discarded or struck out. Netherzone (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable with ample sourcing. Oppose merge, there's too much content for a merge. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GeoFS

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

Sourcing is mixed at best. I don't think this would've made it through AfC. Even with a major cleanup and links to secondary sources, GeoFS is only really ever included in "top x flight simulator games" pieces, and even then with very varying levels of depth and reputable coverage. guninvalid (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings: @Aviationwikiflight @Mybirthday647 @Xavier Tassin guninvalid (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Motor Vehicle Area Code of Bihar

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

Fails WP:NLIST, and no indication of notability whatsoever. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NLIST. Nothing of any encyclopedic value. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of Regional Transport Office districts in India can be updated, and this can be redirected or deleted; a separate article is not necessary. Peter James (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That article is also a fairly good candidate for deletion too. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even clear what this list is about, much less why we would want to include it in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilletsMauves^€500 09:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Esgaroth Three

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

Not sure if this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 07:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Axie Hindman

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, this person is only known in connection of her husband Darwin Hindman, a former mayor. A search finds close to no sources on Axie, failing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, the only sources mentioning her in the context of her husband. Also want to note I was pretty interested by a mayor being openly gay and having a husband, but Axie is actually a woman, which the article got wrong. jolielover♥talk 07:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 07:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It appears the creator's response to this nomination was to immediately drafity it; it is now at Draft:Axie Hindman. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the article back but suggest that the article be draftified when this AFD closes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all too familiar with Drafts, but Axie has essentially no notability (and I think is dead? so unlikely to gain notability), so I don't think making the article a draft would be helpful ultimately since it is almost definitely going to be rejected. I don't really have strong feelings either way though. jolielover♥talk 08:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is clearly a woman, and not a man. This mistake was apparently done deliberately by the author, since any WP:BEFORE search clearly demonstrates that subject is, in fact, a woman. Could this qualify for speedy deletion under G3 (hoax), or possibly even under G10 as an attack page? CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt that maybe the creator is unfamiliar with English, esp. since the subject is not trans (if they were trans and the pronouns were wrong, it would probably qualify as an attack page). Their userpage also says they try to do the right thing. I'd let it slide. jolielover♥talk 08:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the wife of the mayor, she did have a public role and did receive some coverage, however I'm not seeing enough for her to meet WP:GNG. If enough is found at some point, a new article could be created. There's nothing here worth keeping. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ebru Eroğlu

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

WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS. She is known for being one of a few people who were expelled from the Turkish army after a recent controversy. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Events, and Turkey. Badbluebus (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, textbook example of BLP1E, I was planning to add notability tag to the page and then I saw it was nominated for deletion. I don't think it will pass WP:10YEARTEST at all, most likely won't even pass a "one year test".Tehonk (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, this individual appears to be hardly documented other than in the event of her being being expelled from the Turkish army, an event which is not significant in its own right. jolielover♥talk 10:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is true that Ebru Eroğlu was expelled from the military due to a recent controversy. However, the focus is on her because she is the most significant figure among those involved in the action mentioned in the article. This type of incident has occurred for the first time in the history of the Republic of Turkey, impacting both the military and the public. While it has been covered almost daily by the entire Turkish media, it has also gained attention in European and American press. Additionally, she is the first female soldier to graduate as the top student from the Turkish Military Academy. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate for the article to remain. Biologg (talk) 10:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ Merge to Turkish Military Academy#2024 Oath controversy, where the incident is covered and she is mentioned by name; it does seem to be her only claim for notability, so BLP1E seems relevant. Changed vote to "Merge", on seeing that the text of the oath isn't yet in the target article. PamD 11:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xen Coffee

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

Unremarkable coffee bar failing WP:NOTABILITY, most content is written by the owner. This is basically just a content marketing / SEO page. UKWikiGuy (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Companies. UKWikiGuy (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief mentions [29] are all I can find. Nothing notable shown by the sources used in the article either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 9 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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 American aviation crisis

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

Recency bias made article and does not meet the the Wikipedia Notability guideline RobertOwens01 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, and United States of America. RobertOwens01 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Do people not realize that these accidents are just a string of coincidences that the media has made seem connected? Stuff like this is relatively common, crashes will obviously get more attention following a major accident. E_F⁵ 04:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems like SYNTH. SportingFlyer T·C 04:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 100% SYNTHed material. Probably just coincidences. Putting them all in one article implies correlation. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a "crisis" whatsoever and just a bunch of highly-reported on accidents. Article implies they are connected. WP:SYNTH. jolielover♥talk 06:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a recency bias as nom said, also seems to be trying to link the accidents together despite, by most definitions, they were completely separate incidents, which I believe does more harm than good.-FusionSub (talk) 06:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence these events are connected other than hysteria. Esolo5002 (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG – String of most likely unrelated and unfortunate events being summarized as an "aviation crisis", which in other words is simply original research/synthesis. No sources are providing significant coverage of the topic, if any at all. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I sadly suck at creating articles, and I think this SYNTH and in some ways, I even see this as a WP:TOOSOON violation. Protoeus (talk) 13:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be purely speculative. There is no "aviation crisis", only several incidents that happened to occur in a short period of time. Electricmemory (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it doesn't appear to me that a single source even calls it a "crisis", so this whole thing is just original research. Electricmemory (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR & all the above. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not a crisis, it's accidents happening. There aren't hundreds of them... These are rather limited and not connected to Donald Trump. Oaktree b (talk) 21:17, 9 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.

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) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Koutu

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

Mentions of school are either passing or trivial, with most coverage dedicated to the now disgraced former principal. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The history of the school and its impact on the community are covered in a chapter in the scholarly publication Collaborating to Meet Language Challenges in Indigenous Mathematics Classrooms published by Springer in 2012.

Reference: Meaney, T., Trinick, T., Fairhall, U. (2012). "The History of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Koutu – The Politicisation of a Local Community". In: Collaborating to Meet Language Challenges in Indigenous Mathematics Classrooms. Mathematics Education Library, vol 52. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1994-1_3

Paora (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdraw based on that source. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle Thanks! Paora (talk) 04:36, 9 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.

Boy Scouts

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

Highly confusing. It's not a disambiguation page (there's already Boy Scout (disambiguation), with a 10-year old discussion about merging the two, Talk:Boy_Scouts#Merge_of_Boy_Scouts_(disambiguation)). It seems a set-index article, as it's just a list. Boy scouts redirects here but Boy scout doesn't. fgnievinski (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scouting-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. This information could be moved elsewhere, but I am unclear where, but until that is done it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see the need for both of these dab/set pages. Reywas92^Talk 06:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that "Boy Scouts" is a term that is used across the world. It is not restricted to the USA. Bduke (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boy Scouts and Boy Scout are two related but distinct concepts. Boy Scouts refers to the umbrella of organizations within Scouting whereas Boy Scout refers to the individual member, usually called a Scout. To prevent confusing crossovers, anything referring to or containing "Boy Scout" (singular) should remain on Boy Scout (disambiguation) whereas anything referring to "Boy Scouts" (e.g. organizations related to the movement) should be on Boy Scouts. The pages should have a hatnote referencing the other DAB page. I think merging the two would make things more confusing. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:38, 9 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 12:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizii

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

Fails notability, it was once deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farhad Azizi (athlete). now recreated again under a slightly different name to trick wikipedia. I'm going to repeat what I wrote before. most refs are fake and searching his name in English gives you almost nothing. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 2 February 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 03:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with everything stated by nominator. Tehonk (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this not qualify for speedy? JoelleJay (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT – Clear intention to circumvent the previous AfD. Svartner (talk) 05:53, 10 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.

Moeed Pirzada

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. He was one of the journalists who were targeted by the Pakistani government in 2023 under some controversial charges. Most of the sources that discuss those arrests don't talk about Pirzada in any significant depth, which is why most of his career is sourced to primary sources in this article. Since this article has been repeatedly created by sock/meatpuppets, I would recommend salting it as well. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pirzada appears to be a notable TV host, and his legal troubles go beyond WP:BLP1E. He was arrested in 2015; news coverage of that arrest described him as a "renowned TV anchorperson". A former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju called him an "eminent Pakistani journalist" while responding to a speech of Pirzada's. His departure from Pakistan seems to have been widely covered. [30] [31] [32]. There are a number of other news stories on Google News about him. And these are just the English language results -- no doubt there is more coverage in Urdu. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
exactly 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfire: https://arynews.tv/moeed-pirzada-leaves-pakistan/ seems to be a carbon copy of the Daily Times source I dismissed below as too sparse. The ANI piece is useless for notability (wrong subject). https://indicanews.com/justice-markandey-katju-moeed-pirzadas-garrison-state-speech-in-alabama/ is hardly about Pirzada, instead being a criticism of the Pakistani military (and it's an op-ed to boot). The Nation and Dawn look okay as sources, though The Nation is certainly the weaker source of the two. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my assessment that Pirzada is notable as a Pakistani journalist. The lede of the ANI piece is Islamabad [Pakistan], October 31 (ANI): Senior Pakistan journalist Moeed Pirzada has left the country and reached the United Kingdom (UK), media reports said on Sunday amid an ongoing row surrounding the mysterious death of a popular Pakistani journalist in Kenya. Jfire (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jfire: The lede doesn't matter much when 85-90% of the article afterward discusses the situation since Sharif's takeover and the only other mention of Pirzada is a quote that name-drops him at the very end of the article. There's literally nothing there to cite that would help the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pakistani military regime is tragetting him. He is a renoewed journalist. 125.215.214.137 (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: per Jeske's excellent source analysis. qcne (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Not just the Pakistani government, but also the Pakistani military establishment has targeted him. He remains a prominent journalist in Pakistan, with millions of people relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe. This is evident from his YouTube channel, which garners significant viewership from various countries, not just Pakistan. His page may require some, or even a lot of, improvements, but these improvements can only happen if the page is allowed to exist and remain open for public contributions. Deleting his page would be unfair Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

thank you so much Isaqibrana (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Moeed Pirzada is a prominent politics investigative journalist from Pakistan and has been in the media industry as senior anchor & columnist for over 16 years. He already had wikipedia page for years on wikipedia but recently the page was deleted after years being on wikipedia, deleted specially after he became a victim of Pakistan Regime 2022 with several other Pakistani journalists. The previous wikipedia page deletion shows how current administration does not want him to be a public figure, I believe even the previous deletion of his page was against freedom of information. He is being targeted by current administration in Pakistan. After being banned from entering Pakistan and banned on mainstream media, he choose to spread his voice using social media and currently have over 3 million people follow him with over 30 million active views. He also conducted interview with former British Prime Minister. QuantumThread (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)— QuantumThread (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and salt. There are shenanigans going on with this page (see the creator of Draft:Moeed Pirzada removing the G4 deletion template and copy-paste-moving the draft page's content into this page simultaneously). But even without the shenanigans, this subject does not clear WP:GNG or WP:NBIO for a standalone page. Almost all of these sources are to Pirzada's own writings or to other non-independent sources. The couple of sources that are both independent and reliable are not WP:SIGCOV of Pirzada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
millions of people are relying on his political analytical abilities to foresee what is likely to happen in the near future in Pakistan as well as around the globe Isaqibrana (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pirzada qualifies to be on Wikipedia and definitely meets the criteria for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.He is a credible and well-informed journalist in Pakistan. While I acknowledge that there is room for improvement, this can be achieved by allowing open contributions and ensuring that citations come from independent sources rather than his own blog. for your reference please have a look https://www.economy.pk/top-10-news-anchor-in-pakistan/. Pirzada is one of the top journalists of Pakistan 101.53.234.144 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC) — 101.53.234.144 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mr Moeed Pirzada is very well known and respected world renowned Political Analyst, Journalist,TV anchor / Host, and an author. His name should not be deleted from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neunad (talk • contribs) 05:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Neunad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: as per Jfire (talk). He's done much better explanation above. Behappyyar (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Dclemens1971. Nothing has changed since previous AfD. They have also published a lot of spam via globalvillagespace.com on Wikipedia. Too much waste of volunteers time. Gheus (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have very divided opinion here right now and much of it is just opinion. Can we get a source review?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no divide once the sock votes above are struck. This was previously decided at AfD and I do not see anything since that one which shows how this qualifies for a page. Based on the SOCK activity and bludgeoning, I would also recommend salting. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth - This article has been a target of a meatpuppetry operation (see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/PhoebeAfrin), and regardless of the obvious meatpuppets crawling out of the woodwork I see mostly sources with a connexion to him, and what doesn't have a connexion is too sparse for this article or an unverified YT video. There's jack here to work with. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am entirely ignoring the sock/meat campaign to keep this article, but there remain two valid keeps that haven't been rebutted directly - tempting as it is to delete an article purely because it is the subject of an off-wiki campaign, that isn't based in policy either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hi, I am participating in the discussion again because my previous comment was deleted. I created this page to preserve the subject's legacy. He is a household name for millions of Pakistanis around the world. After receiving threats due to his political views, he went into exile but continued his journalistic work. He started vlogging and using new media as an alternative to traditional legacy media. He writes articles and collaborates with other prominent figures, and his geopolitical views are widely appreciated.

He is also one of the few pakistani anchors who has interviewed major global personalities, including Hillary Clinton and Benazir Bhutto (the first female Prime Minister of an Islamic country)Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC) — Aqsa Qambrani (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Aqsa Qambrani: Spamming arguments does you no good. We do not accept notability-by-osmosis as a valid argument, so everything about his collaborations and who he interviewed means literally nothing as far as notability goes. And while there are source that do verify he was threatened and went into hiding, those sources otherwise don't say anything about him specifically, which is a very serious problem for the article's chances. In fact, I'm going to straight-up Bastard Helper From Hell the sources in the article in order to rebut your argument:

We can't use https://pakistaninsiders.wordpress.com/category/sochta-pakistan/ (no editorial oversight). Random, unattributed Wordspot blog.
https://video.dunyanews.tv/index.php/en/pv/tonight-with-dr-moeed-pirzada/14090 is useless for notability (connexion to subject). He was directly involved in its creation. Get used to seeing this particular judgment.
https://islamabadliteraturefestival.com/speakers/moeed-pirzada/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). I doubt the Oxford University Press would have an article on a random author unless they were publishing his work.
https://www.voanews.com/amp/pakistan-urged-to-drop-absurd-mutiny-charges-against-journalists/7137691.html is useless for notability (wrong subject). Article is about the suppression of journalism in Pakistan, and says nothing significant about Pirzada other than that he is one of the targets. Of the three times his name appears in this piece, two of them are quotes.
We can't use https://dunyanews.tv/amp/english/758335.php (too sparse). Practically too short to cite, not helped by the piece being written in a hideously redundant manner.
https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/alumni is a non-sequitur.
We can't use https://www.urdupoint.com/profiles/moeed-pirzada-185.html (unknown provenance, too sparse). Uncredited profile with barely anything worth citing on it.
https://moeedpirzada.pk/profile-2/ - and anything else on moeedpirzada.pk - is useless for notability (connexion to subject).
We can't use any of the four YouTube channel links (connexion to subject, website homepage).
We can't use https://www.khaleejtimes.com/search?q=Author+Moeed+Pirzada (too sparse). We don't cite search results. Same applies to https://tribune.com.pk/author/1719/moeed-pirzada , https://www.nation.com.pk/columnist/moeed-pirzada and https://dailytimes.com.pk/writer/dr-moeed-pirzada/
https://www.britishcouncil.pk/programmes/society/next-generation is a non-sequitur.
https://ipripak.org/potential-of-pakistans-soft-power-and-public-diplomacy/ is useless for notability (too sparse). This is basically an extended quote/attribution of views to him and doesn't say anything about Pirzada specifically beyond paraphrasing his presentation. That isn't anywhere close to enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi27MzgIu-I is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Note that TED Talks are, as a general rule, glorified op-eds.
All three of the State Department sources are useless for notability (connexion to subject, gov't document). All are transcripts of interviews he conducted, and government sources are, by default, primary sources that cannot be used by themselves, especially in the context of a biography of a living person.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQkXD9mCNIc is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Interview where he is the conductor.
https://southasianvoices.org/the-subcontinental-podcast-episode-8-a-conversation-with-dr-moeed-pirzada/ is useless for notability (connexion to subject). Podcast episode where he is a guest.
We don't cite Xitter or any other social media (no editorial oversight). This can only be used in a WP:ABOUTSELF manner, never for notability.
We can't use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FVGKOJB9zM (unknown provenance). This is the first YouTube video you cite that isn't (from) a verified channel.
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1020218/moeed-pirzada-left-pakistan-because-of-threats/ is borderline at best. Given Pakistan's suppression of journalists I'm willing to overlook the byline, but there's nothing really here to work with beside that. Half the article is paraphrasing of stuff Pirzada said while the other half is incredibly perfunctory description that's barely worth citing.
We can't use Medium (no editorial oversight).
https://www.globalvillagespace.com/about-15000-killed-in-ethnic-confrontations-in-sudan/ is a non-sequitur. (Pirzada is not credited for the piece and if he were, the source would still be unusable due to its having been written by him.)
We can't use https://lums.edu.pk/sites/default/files/2022-06/Academic_Report_2021_22.pdf (connexion to subject, too sparse). Report from a university he worked for.

You have one borderline source that would barely pass muster. Literally everything else is some degree of uncitable for one reason or another. Notability is far from being met. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano Thank you very much for your comment and shedding light into it, will this work https://justicekatju.com/the-bravery-of-moeed-pirzadathe-bravery-of-moeed-pirzada-fc1f62df49b0 or https://tribune.com.pk/author/1719/moeed-pirzada or this https://www.khaleejtimes.com/opinion/dont-hang-him . I did not mean to spam and if it went against policy I am sorry for it. If my given links still are inadequate then you could me one right example then I may work on it. In khaleej time they qoute in the last lines as "Moeed Pirzada, a broadcaster and political analyst with GEO TV, has been a Britannia Chevening Scholar at London School of Economics & Political Science." I am hoping it helps. Thank you Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick rebuttal on sources per the relister's statement (although I only see one valid "keep" that needs rebuttal, since one of the "keep" !votes is a WP:PERX:

First of all, I completely endorse Jéské Couriano's source assessment.
Aqsa Qambrani's "keep" rationale is entirely baseless. There is no reason to preserve the subject's legacy per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. And interviewing notable persons does not confer notability per WP:NOTINHERITED.
Third, a review of Jfire's proposed sources: One is signed by "our staff reporter" and two others are signed by "web desk"; unbylined content from South Asian outlets is a red flag for unreliable sourcing. Indica News devotes a few sentences to Pirzada before going on broader commentary on the Pakistani military. The ANI and Dawn stories on his 2015 arrest and later departure from Pakistan appear to be brief WP:ROUTINE news items; I don't think these meet the test of WP:SIGCOV. I appreciate Jfire bringing these sources to the discussion, and while I usually agree with them about AfD outcomes, in this case I just don't see a compelling case for WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, and I do see efforts to game the system and disrupt the discussion (by other editors, not Jfire). In light of that, I think SALTing and thus requiring a future submission to through AfC would be the best outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 Thank you very much for your comment here is my say, wikipedia expects the journalist notablity only if they meet General Notability Guideline (GNG) criteria which is

Be independent of the journalist
Have significant, in-depth coverage
Be published in reliable, well-regarded outlets

to which I state he meets those criteria evident from these links https://tribune.com.pk/author/1719/moeed-pirzada , https://www.khaleejtimes.com/opinion/dont-hang-him , and https://vidiq.com/youtube-stats/channel/UCnkYymEbl1qZ0VhGrzH9guw/?utm_source=chatgpt.com . These three links particularly the first Tribune covers his geopolitcal analysis which proves his experties in international political anaylsis commentary. In esteemed internation publication Khaleej times , his publication proves his journalistic ability and strenght. Moreover his interviews with prominent international figures like former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, David Cameron (former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom), and former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

The following link https://vidiq.com/youtube-stats/channel/UCnkYymEbl1qZ0VhGrzH9guw/ showcases his acceptance in the public by adopting to the new media. Also his work has been cited by some major organisation for instance , the interview of Clinton he conducted its transcrpit is archived on the official U.S. Department of State website , Tedx talk a platform known for featuring influential thinkers and leaders has featured him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi27MzgIu-I, Iam qouting tedx talk here "Moeed Pirzada is a prominent political commentator, TV Anchor, columnist and influential blogger in Pakistan. He advises government and key public sector organizations on communication strategies and has worked with international organizations as consultant on issues related to policy and governance. He is currently Director of Governance & Policy Advisers (GAPA) and is Editor Strategic Affairs and lead Anchor for Dunya News, where he hosts his popular show:Tonight with Moeed Pirzada." These altogather make GNS requirment fullfilled. I hope it helps Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not say that the subject of the biography needs to be published in reliable outlets, as in having their articles published in a reputable news website. It says that he or she must be talked about on reliable outlets. Also, funny how you were recently unblocked after promising not to use WP:CHATGPT, and now the second link you pasted here says utm-source="chatgpt.com". Badbluebus (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was unblocked to not use AI for for communication purposes but I believe I can use AI as a tool to do research. Chatgbt help finding source of information but to extract what you require is still your job. Comming to your first argument , Moeed pirzada is a jouranalist not an actor , scientist or politician for journalists to write on him .He writes on on other people and I see alot of journalist are existing on wikipedia despite alot less achievements than Moeed Pirzada for instance Asma Shirazi , Mansoor Ali Khan , Waseem Badami , Sana Bucha , Gharida Farooqi, syed Talat and list goes on.

I hope it helps Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. This is the same notability-by-osmosis claim I explicitly called out above, and trotting it out again isn't going to be any more defensible than it was the first time - in fact, it's less so after my source assessment. WP:NAUTHOR (which NJOURNALIST redirects to) says nothing about the calibre of people the subject has written about contributing to a subject's notability. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 06:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment betrays no understanding of GNG. Being a TEDx speaker is not notable; it is a brand that gets applied to hundreds of local conferences that feature numerous speakers of no distinction or notability. His YouTube channel stats page is (a) a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and (b) not GNG-qualifying coverage. The links to the Tribune and to Khaleej Times are articles by Pirzada, not coverage of him, and thus completely useless for GNG. This page amounts to an aggressive effort to promote a non-notable individual, and Aqsa Qambrani's participation in this AfD has brought forth not one qualifying source. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in my prevous comments he is journalist , reporter and anchors who gives news writes on other things. For journalist 's notablity will be he has been able to publish his articles in renowed and well established meida outlets and have hosted prime Tv shows (news). Tribune , Khaleej Times featring his articles is something and can not be termed as useless for GNS. There is nothing promotional all facts are sourced with references and all. I am giving you my point of view. The names i have mentioned before have page , how do they qualify to be there can you kindly shed light on it? Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Badbluebus and @Dclemens1971 , I am attempting to prove the articles written on him if that what you were looking for https://justicekatju.com/the-bravery-of-moeed-pirzadathe-bravery-of-moeed-pirzada-fc1f62df49b0 his inteview cited here https://www.dawn.com/news/1713281 in Dawn news , Friday times covered him https://thefridaytimes.com/26-Apr-2023/i-studied-internet-law-at-lse-moeed-pirzada-to-welcome-nasim-zehra-s-defamation-case and https://thephilox.com/the-inanity-of-moeed-pirzada/ Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqsa Qambrani: In order:

https://justicekatju.com/the-bravery-of-moeed-pirzadathe-bravery-of-moeed-pirzada-fc1f62df49b0 has been discussed and dismissed above; it's on Medium which is unusable as a source for want of editorial oversight.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1713281 is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop. This is a hinky source in the first place regardless of context as it's almost entirely what Imran says.
https://thefridaytimes.com/26-Apr-2023/i-studied-internet-law-at-lse-moeed-pirzada-to-welcome-nasim-zehra-s-defamation-case is useless for notability (too sparse). Whatever information in here is attributed claims, rather than discussion of Pirzada.
We can't use https://thephilox.com/the-inanity-of-moeed-pirzada/ (unknown provenance). Role byline, and this reads like an op-ed.

Have you read any of the criticisms the people arguing for deletion have said? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské CourianoYes I have, I am sorry for oversight. Did you have chance to look at the exmples I have given? In my last comment . This one (Yes I was unblocked to not use AI for for communication purposes but I believe I can use AI as a tool to do research. Chatgbt help finding source of information but to extract what you require is still your job. Comming to your first argument , Moeed pirzada is a jouranalist not an actor , scientist or politician for journalists to write on him .He writes on on other people and I see alot of journalist are existing on wikipedia despite alot less achievements than Moeed Pirzada for instance Asma Shirazi , Mansoor Ali Khan , Waseem Badami , Sana Bucha , Gharida Farooqi, syed Talat and list goes on.

I hope it helps Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)) Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqsa Qambrani: I invite you to reread every comment I've said in responce to you. You're making the same debunked argument every single time, and it's not helping your case. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 18:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable comments @Jéské Couriano. After revisting your comment , I have a few links which mgiht help us understnad the notability of the subject https://institute.aljazeera.net/en/ajr/article/2780 ,https://www.dawn.com/news/694659/www.tupernic.com, https://www.dawn.com/news/1759895 ,https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/2/pakistan-blocks-tinder-other-dating-apps-over-immoral-content and https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/273014828/another-pak-journalist-leaves-country-amid-mystery-over-arshad-sharif-killing . Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqsa Qambrani: The first link we've discussed on IRC (okay).

https://www.dawn.com/news/694659/ is useless for notability (too sparse). Name-drop, no details to cite.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1759895 is useless for notability (too sparse). No real discussion of them beyond being booked. No discussion of Pirzada.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/9/2/pakistan-blocks-tinder-other-dating-apps-over-immoral-content is useless for notability (too sparse). Quote, no discussion of Pirzada.
https://www.bignewsnetwork.com/news/273014828/another-pak-journalist-leaves-country-amid-mystery-over-arshad-sharif-killing has been discussed and dismissed; this is the exact same content-wise as Arynews and The Daily Times.

Other than the institute.aljazeera.net source, all the rest are unusable. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aqsa Qambrani: Please see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @GoingBatty , I apprecaite your efforts to point that out, I have provided keep comment , the other discusion was due to @Jéské Couriano Kindly responded me saying I might be spamming the discusion and then clarification after clarification and misunderstanging from my side has led us here. I just wanted to keep the page , but I know it can not saty if doesnt meet criteria. I see it as an oppurtunity to learn what ever outcome may come out of it. Aqsa Qambrani (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find mentions of this individual beyond lists of journalists the government went after. Sources are as explained, mostly non-RS, primary and trivial mentions. We aren't a memorial for people. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Fralin

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

WP:NCORP fail. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Products, and Virginia. Graywalls (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBIO; WP:NCORP doesn't apply because Lindy Fralin isn't a company, he's a guy, and a fairly notable musician and business owner at that. (The company he owns is called Lindy Fralin Pickups; the first sentence is just written badly.) See in-depth profiles in The Roanoke Times, The Daily News Leader, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i can make clippings of those sources if anyone can't access through the Wikipedia Library :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is titled under the starter's name but it's written about as a company rather than as an individual. https://www.fralinpickups.com/about-us/ says it's a company with 11 employees. So, if the person themselve doesn't pass on ANYBIO, as a company, it has to meet NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the person absolutely passes ANYBIO, per the sources I linked above :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to leave this as belonging to the "we all make mistakes" Category of Nominations. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 11 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 [33] and [34] 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) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 February 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) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 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) non-XC editor vote struck -- asilvering (talk) 02:57, 9 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]
Yes, I literally just gave a talk about that at Wikimania NYC. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" folks don't seem to be having the same argument the "delete" folks are having. If you're going to !vote keep, please show what makes the org notable - what sources? Furthermore, if an article is extremely biased, we can delete it, as a WP:TNT argument. Let's get this back on track and look at the sources, please. Reminder that this falls under WP:PIA and only extended-confirmed editors may take part in this discussion. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please interpret my argument as Team WP: TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:34, 11 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]
Delete. We have no reliable sources for this whatsoever, including for the claim that it was built in 1470. (fwiw, it sure doesn't look 15th century to me, but I'm not an Italianist.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as soon as I say that, I find the magic word that brings up a source: [35]. This gives us a date of 1476 and a hint of some recent research, so hold that thought. -- asilvering (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm still on "delete", unless someone can pony up some sources. I found a bachelor's thesis ([36]) that says the architect was Giovanni da Porto, if that helps anyone. -- asilvering (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss the info from asilvering w/r/t architect if that helps on IDing sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found sources and have added them. I don't entirely understand the difficulty - unless I've lost my grasp on reality and am looking at some completely different church in Thiene. Ingratis (talk) 11:35, 9 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hopes of finding a more definitive consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book citation provided by Mushy Yank, as well as other secondary sources that are already in the article, indicate that the ships have been discussed as a group, therefore alleviating the main concern of the nominator and the other delete voters. Simply citing the policy without explaining why it violates NLIST like some have done here is a very poor deletion rationale. Obviously, the article needs to be renamed to List of ships in The Adventures of Tintin, but all of the issues in the article can be resolved through editing and are not indicative of a fundamental flaw that warrants full deletion. Billclinton1996 (talk) 07:31, 11 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]
<a>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]

Keep. RebeccaGreen convinced me that the author passes NAUTHOR. See list in her comment below. gidonb (talk) 07:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having found multiple sources (8 so far, just in a google search, and no, they are not publications she has worked for, they're in books and journal articles) where she is quoted or her stances affirmed or questioned, I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR #1, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". The article as it stands does not reflect this, but can be improved. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Isaidnoway's comment above. If you're going to claim that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" on the basis of them writing two books then you're going to need to provide some sourcing that makes that clear. TarnishedPath^talk 01:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's her articles which are widely quoted. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted is not independent from the subject. Isaidnoway addressed that above. We don't count sources which are not independent from the subject as counting towards notability. TarnishedPath^talk 12:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being quoted is being cited, that is exactly what WP:NAUTHOR #1 is about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least 10 sources, other than "The Age". Her views are being widely discussed. SRamzy (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sources? I have demonstrated above that none of the sources brought to the AFD demonstrate notability. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per multiple sources presented during the AfD that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" clearly has the numbers, but none of these keep !votes have appropriate evidence backing them up. If there are independent sources about her and her views, let's see them, please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Independent sources that cite her views include: Voices of Us [37]; The Bible and the Business of Life, p201-202 [38]; Rise of the Right [39]; Pandemic of Perspectives [40]; an article in the Australian Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics [41]; Guy Rundle, 'Goodbye to All That', p 329, in The Best Australian Political Writing 2008 [42]; and see Google Scholar's list of her works and the articles and books they're cited in [43]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles in mention that you've provided appear to be mentions in passing. 6 mentions in passing is not what I consider would meet the criterion "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors".

The 7th link you've provided appears to be mostly populated by her own articles. I see J Szego - The Age, 20xx or similar over and over. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Google Scholar link shows Szego's articles and the number of times each has been cited. If you click on 'Cited by N', you see lists of the other books and articles which cite her - evidence that she has been widely cited by peers. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macon City Council

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

I don't think a city of <200k needs a separate page for its city council, especially given that the only member listed who has a Wikipedia page is Erick Erickson, who is obviously notable for other things. I don't see the argument for this passing GNG. And that's not even mentioning the current state of the page, which cites no sources and hasn't been updated in over a decade--it still lists Erickson as a member of the city council even though he left office in 2011. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created 18 years ago, and was never sourced. Never updated, tagged since 2017. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilletsMauves^€500 09:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Toys 3D

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

Rationale: Non-notable per WP:GNG for a shareware re-release of a game that lacks an article. I think it seems to be shareware that does pop up in odd sources and cover discs, but lacks substantial coverage and review content to justify an article about it.

Source analysis: Relies mostly on primary sources [44], user-generated blogs [45] or game databases [46][47][48]. A PC Gamer article ([49]) seems promising, but the content reveals the writer has not played the game, relying on the site's description to describe it, and is expressing bemusement at the archaic method of distribution of its rerelease. Best coverage seems to be in a Czech magazine website of unknown reliability [50].

Other searches: Trivial mention on Games Industry as part of a publisher background [51]. Internet Archive search found one catalogue listing describing the game ([52]) and one Russian review ([53]) although the latter doesn't really describe or express much of an opinion of the game other than calling it a funny parody of Wolfenstein. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a merge/redirect into Wolfenstein_3D#Legacy. Btw, Tibo Software's website is still online. IgelRM (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps redirect to WinG, the library it uses. 2604:3D09:8C77:A500:595:B86:B208:2639 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrocles (half-brother of Socrates)

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

Not notable. He has precisely one mention in the complete works of Plato. All the information is extrapolated from what we know of Socrates. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (if possible?) to Phaenarete, which already mentions him. No need to merge, as there is no useful information here, and one of the sources is not reliable (geni_family_tree), and the other only has a sentence saying that Socrates had a half-brother Patrocles. The disambig page Patrocles could say "Patrocles, son of Phaenarete and half-brother of the philosopher Socrates". (If any other editors are aware of more information and sources about this Patrocles that could be added to improve this article, I'd be happy to reconsider.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having reconsidered, as per my reply to Uncle G below, I am striking my Redirect !vote. Nails 2002 is clearly SIGCOV, and with the other, shorter sources and explanation of his roles, adds up to at least WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Many decent 21st century sources (e.g. Miller's and Platter's Plato's Apology of Socrates: A Commentary (UOP, 2012, ISBN 9780806186054)), as opposed to the family tree WWW site that is used in the article, point to Nails 2002, pp. 218–219, Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus harvnb error: no target: CITEREFNails2002 (help) as a good recent authority. It has the original Greek name, the citations to classical sources (including Euthydemus), and a lengthy discussion of Patrocles's possible career on the Board of Ten archons (that followed the fall of the Thirty Tyrants) after age 30. Uncle G (talk) 04:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nails, Debra (2002). "Patrocles of Alopece, son of Chaeredemus". The People of Plato: A Prosopography of Plato and Other Socratics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing. pp. 218–219. ISBN 9781603840279.

Uncle G, I'd be happy to reconsider, but I have no access to Nails' book myself (Google Books preview does not show those pages, nor the Works cited and consulted (which might provide other sources too)). Other sources I have found have at most a sentence or two about Patrocles, though admittedly more than is in this article. Xenophon: Ethical Principles and Historical Enquiry p286-287 says "Socrates' half-brother Patrocles was King Archon of the board of ten oligarchs who replaced the Thirty after their downfall"; Socrates in Love p 170 says Patrocles "may have had political ambitions; he is named as holding an official position in the Athenian treasury in the late fifth century". The Bloomsbury Companion to Socrates names Patrocles as one of seven who fled into exile as a result of the scandals and failed oligarchic coup of 415. That does sound like he was notable. I do not feel competent to add that info to the article, though! RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, unless additional detail sufficient to prove notability is forthcoming: the best way to prove that would be to add some substantial, reliably cited mentions. If you do this, feel free to ping me to reconsider my !vote. Brief and passing mentions (even in good sources, as those discussed above seem to be) are not in themselves sufficient to do this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added those sources to the article. I hope that someone with access to Nails 2002 will expand the article further. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else has critiques, I'm happy to keep the article given these improvements, thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 01:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom on behalf of @Kharavela Deva: whose nomination was: "The article's neutrality is disputed. Less coverage, non-reliable sources,no verifibility and also AI-generated content. It may broke WP:V,WP:N,WP:D" I am neutral Star Mississippi 00:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and India. Star Mississippi 00:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article doesn't seems to be totally AI generated, see [54]. Also, The previous AfD reason which was written by them was 100% AI generated, [55] it was also noted by Jynixafy [56] Koshuri ^(グ) 08:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to assess notability of recent Indian topics, per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. As far as this book is concerned, I would think it possible that the original text by Achyutananda Dasa could be notable, or at least worth including information about it in the article about him (though I note that article says that he "wrote numerous books, many of which could be loosely translated as the Book of Prophecies"). Trying to assess the refs in this article: (1) is a video, so inaccessible to anyone who does not know Hindi; (2) is unreliable (at the end is "Disclaimer. The above information is based on various sources. Webdunia does not officially confirm it." It does not mention the 2023 book, just the text by Achyutananda Dasa. (3) does not mention the 2023 book either. (4) does say it's a review of Bhavishya Malika Puran translated into Hindi language by Pandit Shri Kashinath Mishra in 2023, but just repeats the same summary of the predictions as other refs do. (5) does not mention the 2023 book either. (10) in English is by someone who says "I am enthusiastic blogger & SEO expert." Probably not reliable, but does end the review by saying "Bhavishya Malika’s Authenticity: Some people are not sure if the Bhavishya Malika is genuine. We don’t really know where it came from or who wrote it, and some experts think it might be a more recent creation. Different Interpretations: The things written in the Bhavishya Malika can be understood in different ways. So, people might read the same text and come up with different predictions. Accuracy of Predictions: There’s no scientific proof that the predictions in the Bhavishya Malika are correct. It’s impossible to predict the future with complete certainty." This review also has a summary of positive and negative predictions in the book. If this article is kept, it should include information about the book's reception and critiques of it, not just repeat its predictions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Difference defined The book supports unreliable sources. In my opinion, it is surely a religious pseudo-scientific book written by Achyutananda Dasa and it is wrongly translated by Mr. Kashinath Mishra. Even though I am from Indian state Odisha and worship Sri Achyutananda ji, I will call it a pseudo-scientific book. The Srimad Bhavishya Malika and it wrongly translated version Bhavisya Malika Purana should be differentiated. Regards,Ved Sharma (talk) (contribs) 12:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 9

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