Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 21	January 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of miniature sheets from India Post

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

This page is just a plain a list and should be deleted and I'm not even certain this list of almost 300 miniature sheet from one country warrants a listing because they are not really notable and none appear to have their own article. Besides which, the prose does not directly even address the title of the page in any significant way. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fairly weakly. It seems to me that these are an important commemorate feature in India and have been noted in various journals for Philately in India. Indeed it would be odd if they didn't. Second we have this kind of thing for various other countries including for example United Kingdom commemorative stamps 2010–2019 and whilst I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I don't really see a strong reason to either !keep or !delete this kind of thing. JMWt (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt I agree that similar WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this and the similar lists are essentially just extracts that exist in stamp catalogue with a few sources and wikilinks added. IMHO they really don't have much, if any, real encyclopaedic value or individual notability. ww2censor (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the lead could be better, miniature sheets are at least an independently-discussed topic within the realm of philately and appear relevant to the field in India. The existence of this list in sources appears to make it fall under the criteria of WP:NLIST to me. Recon rabbit 15:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs more info Equine-man (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sui Southern Gas Company cricketers. I see a clear consensus against keeping this as a standalone article. Two redirect targets have been proposed - I am arbitrarily selecting the more recent one, since the target is not really a matter for AfD, but this discussion is no bar to changing that target. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Attari

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail as the only source cited is the Cricinfo database. No sources cited in the Urdu Wiki article. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE going through to the 10th page of GHits. FOARP (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't someone who has played one or two matches: he played 76 FC matches and took 245 wickets. I have no doubt that there will be dozens and dozens of offline sources in Pakistani newspapers. In any case, the Cricinfo page referred to links to four articles itself. St Anselm (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated claims of notability based purely on participation (i.e., “they’re notable because they participated in X matches”). None of the Cricinfo articles give Attari significant coverage - they’re all match reports where he gets a passing mention. Attari is a 21st century player and Pakistan is now a country where more than half of the population has internet access: if there was significant coverage, it would be online. FOARP (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NSPORT requires all sportsperson articles to cite a SIGCOV IRS source in addition to the subject meeting GNG. No such source has been identified. JoelleJay (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems rather unlikely that there would be no GNG qualifying coverage, particularly in local language sources, of someone who was an under-19 international and had a first-class career spanning more than 10 years. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are the GHits for his name in Marathi, This is Urdu. There's an Islamic scholar/priest of the same name who gets a lot of hits, but nothing but passing mentions for Attari the cricket player. As discussed above, he's playing in an era where you'd expect online coverage if any significant coverage existed. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, it's reasonable to expect coverage exists; not everything on the Internet is easily found via Google. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage exists for the scholar/priest of the same name, who lives in the same country and is a council (shura) member in Sialkot - that is to say hardly a major public figure - and is easily locatable on Google by searching using their name: if significant coverage exists, it will be online and searchable using Google (which is the no. 1 search engine in Pakistan). Pakistan is a modern country where people use the internet the same as everywhere else nowadays.

Moreover we deprecated "participation-based" assumptions of notability in 2022. We no longer assume someone's notable just because they play a sport at a particular level. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 Under-19 Cricket World Cup squads. The coverage is mainly based on match reports such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Media in Pakistan rarely covers domestic cricket matches, and when it does, it is usually in the form of match reports. Considering this limitation, we should count newspaper articles toward WP:GNG if they provide detailed coverage of a cricketer's century or five-wicket haul. However, for this cricketer, there is not even coverage of his best performances, so a redirect is the best option for now. Gheus (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Sui Southern Gas Company cricketers, as this was the last Pakistani club he played for. I don't agree with articles that are derived from statistical databases and, although there are no lists or tables in this one, the brief narrative is entirely based on statistics. I think WP:NOTSTATS must apply in all such cases. In any event, it has rightly been agreed that participation alone does not confirm notability. To use an old adage, usually aimed at "cowboys" in the construction industry—he might have have been doing it for ten years, but that doesn't mean he's any good at it. To be viable, an article must be based on significant coverage in reliable, non-statistical sources. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current sourcing in the article is terrible. Having said that, there is no option to delete here; per WP:BANDMEMBER we need to either redirect to Above & Beyond (band), or keep as a seperate article. To keep as a seperate article then evidence is needed to show McGuiness is notable independently of the bands he plays in. On a quick search the following are evidence supporting independent notability: DJ Mag Germany, DJ Mag Latin America, EDM.com. I will look for further sources when I have time. ResonantDis_tortion 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that an Instagram and Companies House sources tick the boxes of SIGCOV. Perhaps the one additional source you have added 'ticks the box', but the article still needs cleaning up. Soybean46 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or redirecting. Soybean46 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, wondering if User:ResonantDistortion has come to a position on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified a couple more sources, including covering his career in marketing - including Music Week award, and of his solo career. Article has been updated. Should be enough to show independent notability. ResonantDis_tortion 20:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are now references in the article showing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Orange County Weekly, DJ Mag, Music Week, and EDM.com so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the article should no longer bear the tag of needing references, and the Discography section should be cleaned up. I'm not sure which WP:MoS rule that falls under, but it would just make the article cleaner, wouldn't it :) I can help with that :) Soybean46 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we are keeping this article, please argue my case on the Draft:Paavo Siljamäki page (which I have updated), to keep consistency across articles for Above & Beyond (band)) Soybean46 (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep which the article subject easily meets, is WP:SINGER, WP:WEB, and just looking at the page shows more than enough WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. AgusTates (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Windows 10 version history and Windows 11 version history. ✗plicit 00:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 (original release)

AfDs for this article:

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Indiscriminate listings of software versions at the granularity of a few weeks, most of which only contain a date, version numbers and availability information. The vast majority of references are from first-party sources. I also don't see how individual releases of Windows 10 or 11 are notable on their own.

The summarized articles Windows 10 version history and Windows 11 version history, which these were split from, are completely sufficient within an encyclopedic context and consistent with other articles in the same category. Don Cuan (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Don Cuan (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these articles back into Windows 10 version history and Windows 11 version history respectively. J. Geerink (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for splitting was the excessive size of these two articles. I think they're mostly fine as they are now; re-adding the version tables wouldn't contribute anything to them. The lists of "notable changes" should be summarized (and already are for the most part). Don Cuan (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, keep the notable stuff (that which is covered by the press) and remove the detailed changelogs in "Builds". At that point it probably doesn't need to be forked. Wizmut (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: Flagrant violations of WP: NOTCHANGELOG, per nomination. Redirecting to the Win10/Win11 version history articles described above is an acceptable WP: ATD. The last nomination contains some comments that read along the lines of "Windows is used by a lot of people so all of these versions must also be notable", which is really just a bunch of nonsensical posturing since notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (weak) -- the biggest hurdle, here, is the original 2018 AfD followed by the failed 2022 AfD. The consensus was seemingly clear (though I would personally disagree on that; it was muddy, at best... certainly strong enough for 'keep' to prevail, though) and I, personally, hesitate to go against precedent, even when so much time has passed. The saving grace, here, is that nothing has really changed. Otherwise... each Windows 10/11 version needs to be shown to be independently notable. Definitely second nominator's contention that WP:NOTCHANGELOG is coming into play. I would proffer my support to a merge/re-direct, as others have opined. Windows 10 version history and Windows 11 version history is fine. Concerning a merge, I think the length of the article would be fine, even with a merge (and there are ways to trim the fat on merges like this, anyways). List/history of articles are usually fairly long. That being said, a partial merge would be fine. MWFwiki (talk) 04:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Merge details if notable and missing in Windows 10 version history. Agree with WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Asteramellus (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m involved in virtualising older versions of Windows and end up looking back at these pages relatively often. I’ve always found it odd that other software and operating systems have unified Version History pages, yet Windows 10 has these separate articles.

As long as any key information is brought over and merged with the Version History page, I think it would both look tidier and be easier to navigate as a whole. ✅ OpiateGuzzler (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Merge or redirect for these separate articles into Windows 10 version history and Windows 11 version history. Andre Farfan (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Windows 10 version history and Windows 11 version history. As others have said, this is a fairly flagrant example of WP:NOTCHANGELOG. I'm fairly shocked at the earlier AfD where there seems to be no policy rationale anyone provides to keep other than "it's useful". This is important minutiae, but it's minutiae that isn't encyclopedic to detail so comprehensively to a reader with technical interests. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Well, after two relists what is clear is that there is no consensus for a stand-alone article. I would be willing to undelete as a draft if requested. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falken (bulletin board system)

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish notability. This article was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Falken was not a major player in the BBS scene, but it definitely had its spot. However, this article is a mess that needs to be cleaned up and hopefully sourced better before being published.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies. See WP:DRAFTNO #1. ~Kvng (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That rule doesn't apply to draftification that is part of an AFD closure. We draftify articles due to AFD decisions fairly regularly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no - the exact wording as determined in the RfC that added this guideline is as follows: There is a rough consensus that articles that are too old should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD. There is a much weaker consensus on the specifics, and that articles created more than 90 days ago are too old should be considered a preliminary rule of thumb subject to additional discussion (see below). In other words, if we decide to draftify here, then it can be done. - That being said, I support draftifying the article if there is a notion that sources may exist. No gain in deleting it if a fixer-upper can be done instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My original intent with this draftify vote was that this is a WP:TNT situation, also including (the lack of) sources. I have searched for sources again, but I was unable to find any. I genuinely think that Falken was notable BBS software, but in the absence of sources I'm fine with delete Themoonisacheese (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we are headed toward either draftification or deletion, but I can't say I see a consensus for either as of right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As nominator, I'm fine with draftification or deletion. What I would prefer to avoid is a close as no consensus to a lack of participation, since there appears to be agreement that this article is not suitable for mainspace. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just spent a few minutes scrounging round the net, and I did not find anything beyond the few sources already given in the article. It's entirely possible that there is good material hiding in unventilated corners, but I won't be the one to find it. In absence of such demonstrated sources, I guess delete it would have to be rather than draftification. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perception TVCDN

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

Fails WP:NCORP, I cannot find any independent reliable sources that cover the company itself in depth. All I can find are press releases (not independent), mentions in relation to Trump Media (passing mentions are not significant coverage of the company and mentions in relation to Africell (as before), which mainly fall foul of WP:DEPENDENTCOVERAGE. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United Kingdom. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've blocked the creator (Vanniego (talk · contribs) as a UDPE sock. Not sure which farm they belong to. I've also removed all other known fake SEO sites they used as sources. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 4 google news hits. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, did some googling and not coverage about the organisation itself FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Darlaston. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darlaston Green

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

Not a legally-recognized populated place, just a place, that barely seems to be there based on my WP:BEFORE searches. Delete or redirect per WP:NPLACE. Cremastra (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cremastra (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge What before searches did you do? I get about 2,000 hits in the British Newspaper Archives and while many of those are routine it's clearly mentioned as a neighbourhood, there are books which discuss the demolition of the church there in the 1970s, and this discusses the historical industrial part of the area (search "The Green".) It's a neighbourhood so it needs to pass WP:GNG but it just might. At worst this should be merged into Darlaston. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Described correctly as an area of Darlaston. This is either Keep (needs further searching to determine if it passes GNG) or merge to Darlaston, probably under a Darlaston Green subheading. Rupples (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources: Journal article on the growth of Darlaston includes detail on Darlaston Green [6]. Detail of a sculpture on The Green at Darlaston Green;[7] the sculpture could itself be notable, but if not include under Darlaston Green. History on Methodism in Darlaston Green in the book, The History of Methodism in Wednesbury. Mentions of Dalaston Green Wharf, Darlaston Green Furnaces, Darlaston Green Sidings, Darlaston Green Day School. Early 19th century newspapers refer to Darlaston Green in the parish of Darlaston, until separate parish was formed named Darlaston St George's after St George's church in Darlaston Green was built in 1844. Darlaston Green noted in gazetteers, albeit under Darlaston, but recognised as a distinct settlement.[8] Rupples (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Let me add the entry for the (then) village of Darlaston in William White's 1834 History, Gazetteer, and Directory of Staffordshire, which has a lot about the mine, much more than this article has, that was at Darlaston Green; as well as Darlaston Green's workhouse and church. There is indeed history here. It doesn't look like it from Frederick William Hackwood's 1887 A history of Darlaston, near Wednesbury (Horton Bros) until one realizes that throughout that history it is simply called "the Green", and comes up more often than search engines let on. Uncle G (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - what little there is in the current article, and anything useful from the above, into the Darlston article. KJP1 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 23:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robin del Castillo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SINGER. His supposed international tour has been unsourced for years, and he clearly doesn't pass GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Latin America, and Colombia. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - moving from one country to another is not an "international tour." Bearian (talk) 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been at AFD before so is not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of his music appears to have charted, and a nomination for a non-notable award does not confer notability either. Recon rabbit 16:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it lacks significant, extensive coverage of the person, making it difficult to assess their notability. AgusTates (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've Lost My Head (Ntobela)

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

This textile artwork fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV of it in independent, reliable sources. It is mentioned once in this profile of its creator and on the website of the museum that owns it. Otherwise, this article is a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The cited source for the "Description" section is literally the artwork itself; the creator has just added his or her own description. Other sources include the artist's beadwork collective, other museums' description of beadwork that don't include this artwork, and citations to reference sites that do not discuss the subject or the artist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, South Africa, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although a case could be made that the related Ubuhle Women: Beadwork and the Art of Independence might pass GNG as an overlaying topic.[9][10] – sgeureka ^t•c 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weidner Communications

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

This article is confusing. Is it about a marketing company, a machine translation software, or the brothers (who have last names spelled differently)? 🄻 🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Language, Companies, Technology, and Software. 🄻 🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक: I can't identify a deletion rationale in your nomination statement. Could you please provide one, else this nomination should be closed under WP:CSK#1. This appears to be a reasonably sourced article on a company, the machine translation software it produced, and its founders, which appear to be a reasonable set of topics to cover together. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ per WP:CSK#1 (nom has been editing, but has not provided any deletion rationale). ~ A412 ^talk! 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to open a discussion on this article because I don't think the company is notable, everything I can find about "Weidner Communications" seems to point back to this article. Note also the varying spelling of Weidner and Wydner.

In the entire article, this is the portion about the company called "Weidner Communications":

"During the mid-1980s Weidner Communications, Inc., (WCC), was the largest translation company by sales volume in the United States. (Margaret M. Perscheid, 1985) Later the Japanese sold Wydner's technology to Intergraph Corporation of Alabama who later sold it to Transparent Language, Inc. of New Hampshire. Bruce Wydner, the principal agent for the Inns of the Temple Inc., that retained the research and development rights to the Weidner Multi-lingual Word Processor, separated himself from his brother in early 1979 and no longer supplied any updated software developments. Weidner had offended his brother over a matter of having Eyring Research Institute send their bi-lingual employee to remove Wydners intellectual property from his home, of which Wydner claims was stolen from him."

Everything else is about the software which mentions "Translation Associates" "Bravis International" "Eyring Research Institute" "Transparent Language, Inc." "Intergraph Corporation of Alabama" as all owning it.

My rationale is that the article as it is currently written does not seem to be primarily about "Weidner Communications" and Weidner Communications itself seems to be a non-notable company that was one of 6+ to have something to do with the software. 🄻 🄰 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I think there's a notable topic somewhere in here, although maybe not at the current title. Let me look around for other sources, because I largely can't figure out what the current article is actually citing. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to weak keep and move to Weidner Multi-Lingual Word Processing System. NY Times, InfoWorld, Inc, small mention in a translation technology encyclopedia, small mention in an excerpt from a language science history text. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the nomination qualified for a speedy keep, lacking valid deletion reason, a subsequent comment by the nom provides the missing rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NCORP. I think the nomination by a relative newcomer here wasn't clearly stated. This is my whispering: It's so confusing a page that it would need to be deleted and started over again from scratch. The subject itself is not clearly notable; much of the content is sourced to (parenthetical primary sources like this). The creator of the page made their last edit almost 7 years ago, and apparently has left, so we can't ask for clarification. Is that correct? Bearian (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is what I meant. If the software is notable a new article would be better than trying to edit this one. 🄻 🄰 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm still not clear on the arguments for deletion. If the subject fails NCORP, what is the point of starting from scratch? And if it meets NCORP, any editor may blank the current page and start from scratch without the aid of the Delete button, or simply reduce the article to a well-sourced stub. An assessment of the sources presented here would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yhing Sawheny

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

They fails according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Doesn't have any reliable sources or any concerning academic values. A staff member of the university doesn't seem reliable or notable. Qylt (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Eelipe (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Redirect‎. Whpq (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 ICC Women's T20 World Cup

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

WP:TOOSOON. The 2026 edition is yet to be played. No WP:SIGCOV for this event. This article could be recreated at a later date with more information and sources. QEnigma talk 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. QEnigma talk 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete or redirect, WP:A10 duplicate of the article 2028 Women's T20 World Cup, but with ICC added. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned page (2028 Women's T20 World Cup) was a redirect until the original editor of the article in question removed the redirect and added content ([11], [12]). QEnigma talk 04:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A10 as a duplicate of 2028 Women's T20 World Cup. Vestrian24Bio 06:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Yemen

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

Quite the same reason as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Yemen. A WP:REDUNDANTFORK and an unwarranted WP:SPLIT with no consensus at Talk:List of wars involving Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Lists, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Russia, and Cuba. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Middle East. Garuda ^Talk! 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Garuda ^Talk! 19:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historical country. Merging with List of wars involving Yemen makes a statement on the ongoing secessionist conflict ("South Yemen = Yemen"). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge there, I didn't even call for that. The only thing I'd suggest is gaining consensus to WP:PROSPLIT the List of wars involving Yemen Garuda ^Talk! 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. BilletsMauves^€500 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POINT. This page unnecessarily duplicates information already available elsewhere on Wikipedia, which does not serve the user well. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus appears to be firmly for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chetak helicopter crash at INS Garuda

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

An unnotable and routine accident. No significant coverage and no lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Aviation, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 20:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Military aviation accidents are commonplace and have to be a lot more significant to reach notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military aircraft crashes happen all the time, not notable, fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— As per nomination. Wikipedia is not a news-hosting website.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. There's no WP:INDEPTH & WP:PERSISTENCE coverage of the event. Garuda ^Talk! 17:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, routing military crash with no lasting significance or coverage. Fulmard (talk) 07:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia is not a news hosting website for routine crashes or accidents until unless they become an national news affecting a large population TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources are secondary since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event with the coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AIRCRASH: Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent. The standard for inclusion is therefore higher. Something more is needed to make the grade than mere notification of a crash, which is all we have here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First Anglo–Bengal War

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

Another mess of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, Fails WP:GNG. None of the sources mentions the event as “First Anglo–Bengal War”, The article heavily relies on copied content from Black Hole of Calcutta, Siege of Calcutta and Treaty of Alinagar. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Bangladesh, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Siege of Calcutta looks like the same topic. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Za-ari-masen

The same content already exists there, First Anglo–Bengal War#Capture of Calcutta is the same conflict as Siege of Calcutta, Even the Aftermath (Treaty of Alinagar) is in both of them. Koshuri ^(グ) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor executing the merge can decide what to merge and what not. I can't !vote delete because the topic passes WP:GNG. Za-ari-masen (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nothing to merge at Siege of Calcutta. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shams–Woj rivalry

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

Odd that this article has remained on Wikipedia Since September 2023. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Novemberjazz 18:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Basketball, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into their reespective articles. I think the SIGCOV is there, but it's not a notable enough thing to have a standalone article. I however believe that it is notable enough to be covered on each of the participants page. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a related comment by BHC from 2023 at Talk:Shams–Woj rivalry:
While I agree that these two are purportedly rivals I don't know if it should have its own page dedicated to it, especially as they don't seem to publicly discuss it. Would love to hear other opinions
—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the creator of this article. The rivalry has received significant coverage from several credible sources, including The Washington Post, CNBC and The Daily Beast, with some describing it as the biggest rivalry in the NBA. Sportzeditz (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYBEAST says that there's no consensus that its a reliable source. —Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And that source is anyways more about the industry and how insiders get information, than it is about a rivalry. —Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It simply passes WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from multiple publications, such as Is the NBA's biggest rivalry between two reporters? (CBC.ca), Adrian Wojnarowski and Shams Charania’s Relationship Is Similar to Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, Says NBA Officials (Complex.com), Inside the NBA’s ‘only real rivalry’ (The Washington Post) and Adrian Wojnarowski's reporting on Dan Hurley and the Lakers just escalated his rivalry with Shams Charania to Kendrick vs. Drake levels (USA Today). Alvaldi (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gyatt (disambiguation)

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

Yesterday I proposed this "article"/page for deletion, with the following reason given:
As far as I'm aware, the word "gyatt" only has two uses, the one outlaid (outlayed?) in gyatt, as well as the name of the US Navy ship named after Edward Earl Gyatt. Since no other articles link to this page, it doesn't serve a purpose, and should therefore be deleted. In other words; the continued existence of this article is only warranted if the polysemousness of the word "gyatt" is expected to increase, which I deem unlikely.

A few hours ago someone removed said proposal for the following reason:
"removed PROD: this seems a correct dab page, that can also pop up in search"

In my opinion, this doesn't really address the issue. The only thing that warrants the continued existence is that it pop up on search? Of course it pops up in search. Instead, one could just click on the "primary" Gyatt article, which also has a hatnote to the USS Gyatt page.

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Primary topic with only one other topic:

"If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)

If an existing disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two topics for the ambiguous title and one of them is the primary topic, but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future[1], an {{about}} hatnote can be used to link to a disambiguation page (either in addition to or instead of a link directly to the other article)."
(emphasis mine)

[1]: I don't see the disambiguation page in question expanding in the near future due to the "unusual" nature of the word gyatt.

It's think it's pretty clear that this "article"/page can be deleted.

J. Geerink (talk) 17:56, 22 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 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. There's already a hatnote to the destroyer in the primary topic article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PROD removal without good rationale as it was not based on guidelines. A search for "intitle:gyatt" returns no results but these two. Pretty uncontroversial to me.YuniToumei (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you don't need a seperate dab for something that a hatnote can fix. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER jolielover♥talk 16:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note, also used to include Edward E. Gyatt which was boldly merged in 2021. Page history goes back to 2009 here as a disambig. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Result was withdrawn by nominator. Due to an issue with templates, I have re-closed on nominator's behalf. (non-admin closure) SportingFlyer T·C 17:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC) ‎[reply]

RBG PAC

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

Length does not justify an article. No WP:SIGCOV is present. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, on procedural grounds as no policy or guideline based deletion argument has been made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElijahPepe: the article currently includes significant coverage in papers of record[13][14]. This doesn't make any more sense than the previous one did... You can argue that there isn't enough signicant coverage, but there isn't a way to argue that there is *no* singficant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing this further. This is clearly a WP:PERMASTUB that barely passed the size rule at the time this was opened. I haven't a clue why you're insistent that this deserves to be an article, 221 words and all. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of that is a valid deletion argument... Even if we take it for granted that it is a PERMASTUB that isn't an argument for deletion. The size rule is about splitting/merging, and you proposed deletion not merging. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC

Fine. I'll close this and open a merge request so I can hear the rest of your arguments for why a 220 word article should be in mainspace. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be far easier to judge this AFD if the nominator could provide some comment about the sourcing. That way I at least have some overview of what needs to be looked at for an !vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. BilletsMauves^€500 11:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco San Martin

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

Page fails to meet notability for living persons, via verifiability or even meeting notability for people; page was previously deleted in 2011 for the same reasons. Being a recent death does not equate to notability a decade later. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. livelikemusic (TALK!) 18:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think its self-explanatory: article is only 2 sentences long. TheHiddenCity (talk) 00:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An article simply being a stub is not a suitable rationale for deletion. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I should have been more clear about, and I apologize for that. Since this article is about a notable person, you'd expect it to have details like, early life, a more detailed filmography section, personal life, career, etc. It only mentions his death, 3 of his appearances, and that's about it in 2 sentences. TheHiddenCity (talk) 12:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to expand it if you wish. You can use the obituary in the Los Angeles Times for example. His early life and his career are detailed there; his filmography is covered in some of the other sources, including the Variety article. -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete short article with seemingly no sourcing from before his death. Death itself is not notable. 🔥Jala peño🔥 contribs 10:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia:Obituaries as sources---Obituaries in the LAT, Variety, the Hollywood Reporter etc (and in many languages). Might meet both WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. If this not judged enough please redirect and/or merge to one of the three very notable series he had a significant role in (Days of Our Lives=>50 ep.) (https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2025-01-21/francisco-san-martin-dead-days-of-our-lives https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/francisco-san-martin-dead-days-of-our-lives-1236114015/ https://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/francisco-san-martin-death-days-of-our-lives-tributes-b1206074.html https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/francisco-san-martin-dead-days-of-our-lives-1236280398/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcberman1/2025/01/20/francisco-san-martin-dies-the-days-of-our-lives-actor-was-39/ etc, etc. -Mushy Yank. 10:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a stub, per orbituary sources meeting BLP, or if not at least draftify, as a topic likely to be improved, as notable. Happily888 (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page certainly needs expansion, but he satisifies NACTOR as per Mushy Yank. Rusted AutoParts 02:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Can somebody please put the sources found in the article? Bearian (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gundam Universal Century technology

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

Article previously went through AfD in 2009, although I can't say I agree with the outcome; the article is basically unchanged since then in regards to secondary sourcing, and I don't think any rise to the level of significant (I also don't think most are actually secondary, but there's so little bibliographic details I can't be sure.) This remains a coatrack of in-universe minutiae that belongs on a Gundam wiki, not here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Anime and manga, Technology, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Fuchs. This is WP:OR. We have articles for the main concepts of Gundam (fictional robot) and various Zaku. The nom is right that the rest is a WP:COATRACK, and much of it is unsourced. Perhaps if someone found sources, the Minovsky particle stuff could be covered at Gundam (fictional robot). Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Poorly sourced, largely in-universe plot details, that relies mainly on primary sources and WP:OR. While there was an attempt at having "History" and "Cultural Significance" sections, they run into the same sourcing problems as the rest of the article, and are not sufficient for passing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This place passes WP:GEOLAND. Source support this and I know this isn't officially used to establish notability but I went on Google maps and there does appear to be a human settlement at that location. I only bring up Google Maps because there have been times locations in the American South West have come up and across a wide array of maps there never appears to be a settlement there. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Çınarköy, Çüngüş

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

I cannot find any proof this place exists Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm seeing plenty of sources in Google Books mentioning the village. Such as this and this. There's a bunch of census books that have it listed. It's similarly listed in this government document. Silver seren^C 18:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - thanks for finding that government doc. So perhaps it existed officially in 2010 (or 2012 if a source can be found for the population figure in the infobox) but was later absorbed into a different unit of local government? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the deletion rationale is "no proof this exists," I've gone ahead and added the co-ordinates to the article to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 07:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This place does exist and is populated (or at least was populated as of a dozen years ago). BilletsMauves^€500 11:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pala invasion of Hunas

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

Full of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. The article fails WP:N and WP:GNG & has poor sources which fails verification. The lead mentions that this invasion was led by Devapala & his son Mahendrapala (the cited source does not mention it) however the rest of the article only mentions Devapala. None of the sources refer this event as “Pala invasion of Hunas”. Conflict with kambojas is synthesized in the conflict section too. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Afghanistan, and India. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Recently an article created by the author was deleted for being an HOAX, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander's invasion of Gangaridai. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another pseudohistorical article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–Per nomination.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: can’t find any evidence of WP:GNG. The lack of reliable sources suggests WP:FRINGE. Contributor892z (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of football clubs in Turkey#Regional and Amateur Clubs. Randykitty (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Küçükköyspor

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

Having just one external link is not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of football clubs in Turkey#Regional and Amateur Clubs – As WP:ATD. Even the article on tr.wiki lacks sources for WP:V. Svartner (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 19:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Svartner. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The nomination is flawed - just because the article is underdeveloped does not imply that it's not notable, and the club has been mentioned in research like [15] and receive coverage such as [16] and [17]. If we could find coverage from their stint in the 2.Lig (third division) I'm sure they would easily clear the notability hurdle. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. It's a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatundere railway station

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

The Turkish article only has primary sources and does not explain how it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egekent railway station

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

There is only one secondary source in the Turkish article and that is not specifically about this station Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. There is consensus that the sources in this case do not pass muster Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Miran

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

Promotional article for a non-notable DJ; fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Contested draftification, so AfD it is. Quick review of sources:

Podcasts and other Q&A WP:INTERVIEWs and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: [18], [19], [20].
Promotional copy/video for shows: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].
Sponsored content/press releases and thus non-WP:INDEPENDENT coverage: [27], [28].
WP:USERGENERATED source: [29].
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE / non-independent official bios: [30], [31], [32].

A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same but nothing qualifying for WP:GNG or any other guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Iran, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject had a major feature, including as the cover star, in the January 2024 issue of Mixmag-brasil - Armen Miran, when the mysticism meets the sound of an ethereal world. Mixmag is independent and reliable per WP:RSMUSIC, and shows potential for meeting MUSICIO, but it's not quite sufficient on it's own however.... ResonantDis_tortion 18:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scroll down... it's actually a Q&A interview, not a profile, and thus a primary and non-independent source since the subject is discussing himself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a curated interview in a reliable source that has a multi-paragraph introduction under a journalistic byline. That intro alone is non-trivial analytic coverage per WP:MUSICBIO#1, notwithstanding the curated questions which include further analysis such as "You are well-known for delivering ethereal journeys, sophisticated beats, and tons of dreamlike progressions". WP:INTERVIEW, which you cited above, states interviews "can be considered as evidence of notability"; this includes "selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography". Mixmag, one of the biggest reliable sources in the DJ world, has seen fit to have a front page feature and curated interview, including a short bio, about the subject. Anyhow - this is all academic unless other sources turn up. ResonantDis_tortion 19:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever open an interview with You are well-known for delivering ethereal journeys, sophisticated beats, and tons of dreamlike progressions, that's how you'll know I'm a neutral, independent observer of my subject :) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can utter that phrase with a straight face, I'll know you should be deified :) ResonantDis_tortion 19:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Op cites at least three interviews. All of which have multiple paragraph coverage of the subject: [1], [2], [3]. Besides Mixmag (there is no higher authority than Mixmag in the DJ world) which dedicated a full issue and issue-cover to the subject (Issue 01, 2024). Balance Music Australia and When We Dip, are also respected labels in their respective electronic music and deep house scenes. Xpander (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I also disagree that all sources, 4 through 11 are promotional. For instance Electronic Groove [7] is an electronic music Magazine/Blog. It covers events, music releases from a wide range of artists. Reviewing events, doesn't imply promotion. As for [10] there is no clear indication that these sources count as sponsored content. Xpander (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for [8], [9]. The only claim is "millions of views on Youtube", which is easily Verifiable. The video currently has 13m. Stating a fact can't be discarded as promotion. Xpander (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xpander1 I am not sure you are helping your case. The first link, Electronic Groove, literally offers press features for sale and the second has a large "SPONSORED" flag on it. Neither counts. ResonantDis_tortion 10:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for Balance and When We Dip? @ResonantDistortion Xpander (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Balance is a record company, it appears to be promoting it's artist. When We Dip is less clear, and I'm not familiar with the source, but the lack of any editorial policy is not a great start. ResonantDis_tortion 12:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Balance is known for its mix series, think of it as Global Underground, Fabric discography or Buddha bar series. Many well-known musicians appear on its series. e.g. Max Cooper or Hernan Cattaneo. Xpander (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's quite obvious that all the sources themselves, whatever they contain, should be examined by for their reliability and importance and how much they can be trusted - whatever the sites claim about themselves. Some rely on subscriber generated content; some are interviews - a subject talking about themself does not confer notability. Truly reliable sources in mainstream music media begin with Billboard for example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to University of South Wales#Cardiff. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atrium, Cardiff

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

Few independent third party sources on the page. Little to indicate that a university building should be considered notable. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Wales. JMWt (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly this could be merged into University of South Wales § Cardiff, with some pruning. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I can see no problems with the article. It is well sourced with and it's certainly not a Stub as it has over 321 words (with over 1,500 characters in the main text). Although not used in the article itself it is listed by welshicons.org as an iconic building (see https://welshicons.org/cymrupedia/buildings-structures/atrium-cardiff/. A full list of the buildings that they consider to be iconic are listed here https://welshicons.org/cymrupedia/buildings-structures/. These include listed buildings and other noteworthy structures including the Atrium. Also a Google search lists many non-University of South Wales sites where the building is discussed, and is therefore noteworthy IMHO. I can list the websites if editors want. SethWhales^talk 10:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Welsh icons site states quote "Welsh Icons is a politically agnostic organisation founded to promote Wales and All things Welsh. Over the past seven years the site has grown from a simple “What’s Your Favorite Welsh Thing” type of site to an Encyclopedia and Gazetteer of Wales and all Things Welsh – A Cymrupedia if you like."

A website which promotes all things Welsh clearly by definition cannot be used to show notability, because by that criteria it would be "everything in Wales" JMWt (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of South Wales § Cardiff – the article is already entirely about the building in its role as a university campus, something which would be more usefully covered in the university's article. Joe D (t) 18:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Joe D, it doesn't meet the threshold for being notable. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a suggested compromise. There's no rule one way or another for buildings on university campuses. We sometimes merge merely for our readers to see the context. FWIW, my grandmother was Welsh. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on your ancestry. There are few things better to have than a Welsh mam-gu JMWt (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tajimul Islam

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

Should be deleted per WP:CRIMINAL, article is solely about alleged crimes. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Egregious WP:BLP violation among other things. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Crime, India, and West Bengal. Fram (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:PERP, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being accused of crimes — he would have to be convicted of a crime before that became possible grounds for an article, and even then the crime would still have to be of enduring significance in some way that would pass the "will people still care about this ten years from now" test. We're writing history here, not news. But the article, as written, fails to state that he ever held any office that would hand him a free pass over WP:NPOL, so it can't be kept just because the article calls him a politician either. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— Agree with the nominator, should be deleted per WP:CRIMINAL, and it also fails the WP:NPOL criteria.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A P Varkey Mission Hospital, Arakkunnam

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

No notability per NCORP. I couldn't find any sources with SIGCOV and the sources available are either promotional or primary. I had CSDed it an year ago, but it was declined per claims present eg inaugurated by two major politicians. But since the hospital is owned and run by the ruling party, it is not uncommon for the politicians to present for the inauguration, which is not a criteria indicating notability. — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, India, and Kerala. — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. No secondary independent sources on the page. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant any significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– As per the nominator, should be deleted per WP:NCORP as there is no significant coverage in the article.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWHL

AfDs for this article:

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

Radio station. Deleted in 2016 via AfD for non-notability. Recreated in 2019 by a now-permablocked user. Notability is still not apparent. We have one blog source and one very weird-looking government website cited as sources. I don't think that this suffices in view of WP:GNG. Sandstein 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not notable. On a side note, the page was speedily deleted per WP:G4 on April 27, 2017, since the result of the most recent deletion discussion was delete.AstrooKai (Talk) 10:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find good hits on GNews and GNews Archives. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. One link is dead and unsalvageable. So I replaced it with other sources. The last two sources have a segment where it talks about the station and therefore are reliable and kinda in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco Landing, Indiana

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

It'd easy to find references to the ferry, and there are many hits for a project to determine elevations along the river, but what I'm not seeing is any sign that there was anything here except a ramp down to the water an maybe a shed for a toll keeper. I don't see anything that says this was anything beside where the ferry landed on the Indiana side. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good object lesson in why, as I always say, one should always read what search engines turn up. I can find lots when searching for this name, but reading what turns up they all turn out to be discussing the history and geography of Laconia, Indiana, which is the actual settlement. As reported in a 1959 history, republished in snippets in the August 2001 edition of Indianapolis Monthly, this is just the main ferry crossing south of Laconia. The gas and oil wells of the early 20th century that turn up in searches? They were on the Laconia field and drilled by the Laconia Gas and Bi–Products Company. There is no "unincorporated community" here. There is Laconia. This article is an outright falsehood. Uncle G (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kuhl

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

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. On the same day they created this article, they created at least 63 others (some will have been deleted in the meantime). Fails WP:NSPORTS. Prod declined on the grounds that an interview on the German Badminton Federation website (i.e., clearly not an independent RS), talks about media exposure, but since the subject was a commentator on TV for a short period that's probably what they were talking about, not actual media coverage of them per se. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton, Olympics, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant part of the interview under question is the following: [Interviewer]: Would you say that there was a kind of badminton boom in Germany as a result of its inclusion in the Olympics? [Kuhl]: In the short term, I would say. We had a lot of media attention at the time. I had to fulfill more requests for autographs than ever before. But after six months, that was over... According to that article, he was a four-time German champion and he was also a bronze medalist at the European championship, and after his career he coached the women's national team. Further, Germany is a decent badminton-ing nation with a global ranking in the top 15. I think its almost certain there'd be coverage of him, especially since he's being interviewed by the national association decades after his career (even if its an interview, it shows that he was prominent enough that there's still interest in his career, which would indicate that there was surely interest – and coverage – back when he was active). The coverage would likely be in German newspapers of the time – has any German newspaper archive been searched? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"We" doesn't mean "he". I searched what was available online. Clearly no such database was searched when this article was created, and it is on those wishing to keep the article to find such sourcing. Only a single hit on the FAZ archive - a passing mention in a report about the pair Karen Stechmann and Michael Keck. Not sigcov. FOARP (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But when he says We, referring to German badminton players in general, and he was the top German badminton player from the time (or, at the very least, one of the top four), would it make any sense at all that there wouldn't be coverage of him? Why would a governing body for a major German sport interview him decades after his career if he was such an insignificant figure that not even a single newspaper devoted coverage to him? As for FAZ, that I can find more passing mentions of him in American newspapers seems to indicate that the FAZ archive isn't very comprehensive – If we had a Newspapers.com-like site for Germany I'm certain that there'd be SIGCOV to find of him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FAZ is the biggest German broadsheet and German newspaper of record. You're asserting the existence of something that doesn't necessarily exist based on an over-interpretation of a single phrase in an interview with something that isn't even proper news-media decades after the event.

It's for the people asserting that there is significant coverage to go and find the coverage, not ask that people should just take it on trust, especially considering the history of the article-creator. Alternatively WP:BEFORE searching has to be proportionate to the effort put in to substantiating the notability fo the topic when it was created. In this case the effort put in by the article-creator was patently near-zero - it was created in mere minutes, if that. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FAZ may be the biggest German newspaper, but saying Kuhl's confirmed non-notable by the basis of searching one newspaper is equivalent to saying that someone is non-notable because they weren't covered in The New York Times. It only makes sense that if a player says that his sport received a good deal of coverage, and that player was the best player in that sport, that that player would have received coverage (who else would be receiving coverage then to justify that statement?). I think that a governing body interviewing him decades after his career would indicate significance; if he was some no-name that not even a single newspaper would give coverage to, why would the governing body cover the person decades later? Do you think its likely that someone who was a four-time German champion in a major sport, as well as a bronze medalist at the continental championships, would not be covered somewhere? As for Alternatively WP:BEFORE searching has to be proportionate to the effort put in to substantiating the notability fo [sic] the topic when it was created, no it doesn't. Would you say then that it was inappropriate behavior that I've developed several of Lugnuts' stubs into GAs, some after they were AFDed? More importantly, I was able to find a source that mentioned his email, so I contacted him and hopefully he can respond if he's been the subject of any coverage in the past. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not only search one news paper. I searched the archives of every paper indexed by Google AND the FAZ archive. That's more than enough for an article that Lugnuts through together in a minute or less from a database listing.

If you want this article to be kept, then find sources. WP:BURDEN is clear on this. FOARP (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How many German newspapers from the early 1990s are available through Google? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also look to the German article were there is more information about how good he was. He played on the highest level for quite some time it seems. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's all the same statistical data: WP:SIGCOV is needed per WP:NSPORTS. FOARP (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also states for badminton that if he won or has a podium finish on one of the World Grand Prix sigcov is likely to exist, he won the Swiss Open in 1990. Which means that we can assume with certainty that sigcov would exist per WP:NSPORTS section about badminton. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He and his partner won the men’s doubles in the 1990 Swiss open (which, note, was not part of the Grand Prix circuit at the time, since this was only created in 2007), not him personally. It also says the article has to eventually pass GNG, which this doesn’t because, as is very clear after all this discussion, none of you can find anything in terms of SIGCOV and neither can I. Here’s the Swiss newspaper archive results for Stephan Kuhl, here's Der Spiegel, here's the Internet Archive's results (which covers a number of German publications) for Stephan Kuhl. 1990 was not very long ago as these things go, nor is German some obscure language just waiting to be archived properly - there’s just no “there” there. FOARP (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree that, in theory, a four-time German badminton champion should be notable, the GNG-level sources simply are not there. The best sources are the two badminton.de links in the article, neither of which constitutes sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 10:51, 22 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) 12:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero SIGCOV has been uncovered despite extensive searches by FOARP. Regardless of meeting a sport-specific criterion, all sportspeople must be the subject of a SIGCOV source cited in the article in order to even presume further coverage exists. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with condition = Stephan Kuhl record of tournaments is dire compared to his peers and competitors in those times. But according to his Olympedia entry and Swiss Open page in this very wiki, Stephan Kuhl DID won a Swiss Open with Stefan Frey in 1990. Swiss Open is an actual IBF Grand Prix and most athletes who won it at that time did had an entry on Swiss Open on those times as Grand Prix instead of normal IBF International tournament. Therefore in general, this fulfilled WP:NBAD criteria terms.

BUT, as we know - WP:NBAD does not mean anything if WP:NSPORT is not fulfilled first and I have to admit, the resources I have found is not fulfilling the WP:SIGCOV which suppose to covering his tournaments records wins and losses. One of the most common usage of tournament records is Tournament Software (TS). Although TS has 1989 Swiss Open, they do not have record on 1990 Swiss Open and thus, Stephan win count on TS for Swiss Open does not exist.

So, the condition is : Only maintain his article if you find some reliable sources on his Swiss Open win and some International like Olympedia claim (Austrian and Irish Open) as supporting factor for WP:SIGCOV purposes. If nobody else finds it - Delete Lowyat Slyder (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss Open was not an IBF Grand Prix tournament when Stephan Kuhl and his partner won the men's doubles in 1990 - the Grand Prix was only established in 2007 per our article on it and the Swiss open only became part of it in 2011. Not an WP:NBAD pass.

EDIT:just to get a feel for the history of this I went through the archives of World Badminton Magazine (published by the IBF so not an independent reliable source). The only tournament reported on in the IBF magazine that Kuhl and Frey won in 1990 in Switzerland was "The Watchmaking Metropolis Tournament" (see page 18 here). Even in the IBF in-house magazine, the win of Kuhl and Frey at the Watch Making Metropolis Tournament was covered in a single paragraph (i.e., not significant coverage even if this was an independent source). Notably the schedule of international tournaments in 1990 published in December 1989 did not include anything called "The Swiss Open" (see page 24 here). Based on what this DE Wiki article says the "The Watchmaking Metropolis Tournament" is what was afterwards called "La Chaux-de-Fonds International", and wasn't a tournament of any great significance. From what the DE wiki article about the Swiss Open says, it appears to have been in severe financial trouble in 1989-90 which would explain it essentially not being held and the La Chaux-de-Fonds Tournament later replacing it for 1990 stats purposes in some databases (but not Tournament Software which is the most definitive source).

TL;DR - winning "The Swiss Open" in 1990 doesn't indicate notability. The Swiss Open essentially wasn’t held in 1990. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bronze at 1992 European Badminton Championships, former German national coach, Olympian. Success at Swiss Open 1990 (badmintoneurope.com; L’Impartial, 12. March 1990, p. 9; Federball 31, 1990), Irish Open 1990 (World Badminton, March 1991, p. 10 and 28), Czechoslovakian International 1988 (Federball 29, 1988, 12, p. 3–4; World Badminton, December 1988, p. 13, March 1989, p. 40); Austrian International 1988 (Badminton-Sport 36, 1988, 7, p. 4), World Student Champion [33], 4x German Champion (Martin Knupp: Deutscher Badminton Almanach. 2003). Please use printed literature, in 1990 there was nothing online, and it is still hard to find useful German online sport archives from this time. Nevertheless 13 hits in Singapore [34]. --Florentyna (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

badmintoneurope.com is not independent

. L'impartial is a namecheck, and not even his full name

. Federball is not independent as it is from a governing org

. I can't tell whether "World Badminton" is supposed to be this SPS/UGS

or something from a governing org

. Badminton-Sport is a magazine from another governing org, not independent

. DBA is self-published, can never be used for a BLP

. The first link is obviously not independent (governing sports body). From the second link, of the 13 hits, 7 are viewable and every single one is a namecheck in stats. None of the paywalled sources indicate in any way that there would be coverage beyond stats.

By global consensus, for a sportsperson to be kept IRS SIGCOV must be proven, and it is emphatically not shown by a bunch of non-independent and self-published sources. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second all of this, and as discussed above, the Swiss Open wasn't even held in 1990, and the L'Impartial Article isn't about the Swiss Open - it clearly states it's about the La Chaux-de-Fonds tournament. "World Badminton" is this - the in-house publication of the IBF, so not independent, and even if it was it doesn't give SIGCOV to Kuhl. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again: Bronze at 1992 European Badminton Championships, former German national coach, Olympian. We have here Wikipedia:Notability (sports). There are sportspeople notable if: Have won a medal... Florentyna (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Florentyna, that is not correct. To meet NSPORT, the subject must meet GNG and there must be a source of IRS SIGCOV actively cited in the article. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Notice also that nowhere does the text say There are sportspeople notable if: Have won a medal. Instead it says Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes in badminton if they meet the following criterion: Have had a podium finish at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix JoelleJay (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added to this: it was a medal in the men's doubles, not an individual medal (so indicating the notability of his team with Frey, not him personally), and the 1992 European Championships both weren't "tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix" because those didn't start until 2007. They weren't part of the earlier IBF Grand Prix either (see the calendar of events on page 5 here - only events with a GP star against them were Grand Prix events). This was clearly a minor tournament.

It also has to be pointed out that even in the IBF's in-house magazine, Kuhl and Frey getting third place in the men's doubles wasn't mentioned at all (see page 8 here, and indeed the results page where they didn't even bother to mention this). Clearly not a very notable achievement. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Metalics and Energy

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and West Bengal. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this company is notable, or is little more than a holding company. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with deleting the Shyam Metalics page. Instead, I propose marking it as a stub, indicating it requires expansion and improvement.

Shyam Metalics is a significant player in the Indian steel industry, and its presence on Wikipedia provides valuable information. Deleting the page would deprive readers of this information.

It is a Fortune India 500 company. Deleting the page would be unjustified; it should be retained and improved to reflect its industry importance. 115.187.51.153 (talk) 04:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The time to prove this passes WP:NCORP is now. Not later. Imcdc Contact 12:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sources that fulfil WP:SIRS so WP:NCORP is not met. Extra caution need to be taken per WP:RSNOI - Imcdc Contact 11:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft redirect‎ to NBL1 East. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner West Bulls

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

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:15, 15 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) 12:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No apparent consensus after three relists. No prejudice against another nomination in 1 or 2 months from now.. Randykitty (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishna Bantawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV as per Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Hong Kong, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rahmatula786,

I hope this message finds you well.

Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:

Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):

Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.

Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):

Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal

The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.

If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.

Best regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .

regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rahmatula786,

Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.

I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.

I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.

Best Regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.

In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.

I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appears to be some sourcing not available easily online (the "surface" of the Internet). I'm going for a dive. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.

The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.

It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.

For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My friend is old, like me, represents Nepal to Worec, and reads voraciously. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the link to external site as Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive. Rasilshrestha (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )

Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google

Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity

Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)

Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.

Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive in external Links. They consist of photographs from old newspaper(offline Source). Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what i heard, his book "Aamalai Chitthi" is currently being translated and is expected to be published soon. Once it becomes available, I believe I will be able to provide you with more relevant online sources for further reference. Rasilshrestha (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is now clear evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources newspapers as shown in the news archive link mentioned above in the external links section of the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - COI - looking at the Archies i wonder how so much personal info (like old newspapers copies) and he is planning to make an English version of some book , can be gathered unless editor knows and have approach with the subject. Recent update in the article also describes the same thing. Nothing but a Desperate attempt.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I appreciate your concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I have photographs of offline sources that I have used for my research. Regarding the English translation, it is based on news related to Aamalai Chitthi (https://annapurnapost.com/story/451773/), where the translator Devi Panthi has spoken about it.

I assure you, this is not a desperate attempt, If it were, I would have included additional details of the author. Instead, my article focuses primarily on the subject's songs, novels, and books that he has written. For example, I have read Shrill Mist and am currently reading another work. The song I referenced is also publicly available on YouTube.

Thank you for understanding, and I hope this clarifies any confusion. Rasilshrestha (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did u get all photographs , newspaper cuts , u kept in archives. What kind of research ur doing on him, can u clarify. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I collected photographs from various sources, including a news archive where old newspapers are stacked. Unfortunately, I couldn’t obtain any materials from Gorkhapatra, as they dont allow. Some of the newspapers I used were already in my possession at home, while others were gathered during my visit to a book launch event.

The event was held to celebrate the author’s return from Hong Kong and his book launch. It featured displays of certificates for his awards and documents with official letterheads. However, I chose not to mention these certificates or documents in my article, as I wasn’t entirely certain about their authenticity or relevance Rasilshrestha (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are related with him, how come you find or keen to find those stuff. Have you ever done such efforts to make any other article in Wikipedia. So far i can see , you are here just to make this article. If ur a genuine editor. You might have participated in various other articles, agenda . Did you understand it now. U have altogether 63 edits and almost all for this article only since May 5. That clearly shows what you are looking for . I guess u will come with some other explanations. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Thank you for your concern. I’m currently a student in my final year, and I have a deep interest in Nepali literature, arts, and culture, especially Newar traditions and history, as I am a Newar myself. I also enjoy learning about historical topics and sharing knowledge.

I want to clarify that I am not connected to the author mentioned in the article, nor am I being paid for my contributions. If this were a paid effort, I believe the author would have hired someone more experienced than me. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am still learning and this article has been my starting point.

I plan to work on more articles in the future and am currently gathering resources for my next article as i have already mentioned earlier. Regarding the current article, my intent has been to present information in a neutral tone. If I were biased or paid, my contributions would likely reflect that, but I have strived to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Wikipedia encourages contributors to improve content where they can, and I believe my contributions are consistent with this principle.

While it’s true that I haven’t contributed extensively to other articles yet, everyone starts somewhere. My current focus on this article does not diminish my genuine intention to support Wikipedia’s mission of providing accurate, unbiased information.

If you have specific concerns about my edits, I’d be happy to discuss and address them transparently. I value constructive feedback and aim to contribute positively to the platform. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation doesn’t justify how you gathered all those photos and newspapers pieces put in archives . Anyway i leave it for now. And want to see how other editors put their views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I respect your concerns and your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable and comprehensive source of information for everyone. As a newcomer, I would greatly value your feedback on how I can improve my article. Could you please guide me on how to make it more effective? Also, do you think there are any changes I should consider?

Thank you for your time and assistance in advance. I truly appreciate your support and feedback. Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems offline sources are available as provided in [35]. The same source mentions that his book is included in the Tribhuvan University curriculum. Also suggest the original editor to add the list of awards with sources.nirmal (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I will surely be working on making changes to the article and add list of awards received by the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot read Nepali but it looks like the GNG has been met here. Bearian, some sources have been added since your !vote, so I am pinging you in case you would like to re-assess. Toadspike [Talk] 10:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, he insulted an older woman and dismissed her ability to read. Last time I checked, that's a grave taboo, the sort of thing that makes your Hajura'āmā box your ear. I'm done with this Sealioning. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely apologize if my previous message came across as disrespectful. That was never my intention. I truly appreciate your friend's representation of Nepal at WOREC and admire her love for reading. If she’s interested, I’d be happy to lend her a book by the author. I only have two books with me one is the english translation of Saghan Tuwanlo and the other one is Aamalai Chitthi.

I’m new to Wikipedia and still learning how things work. I plan to write another article soon, perhaps about a Nepalese singer or a temple in my hometown. Once again, I apologize if I caused any offense and hope to move forward respectfully. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The consensus is almost around the corner.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sealioning aside, the offline sources are available and they seem to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I'm also mindful of WP:NOBITE, so I will assume good faith on the part of Rasilshrestha.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.

I am currently dedicating my time to working on a new article while contributing to Wikipedia during my free time. I plan to publish the article within the next three to four months and would greatly appreciate your guidance, support, and constructive feedback throughout this process.

Additionally, I would like to inquire about incorporating offline sources, such as old newspaper articles that are not available online. Should I upload these resources to the Internet Archive, as I did with this article, or are there alternative methods?

Thank you. Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete:I took a fresh look at the article. If anyone has doubts, I recommend reviewing it again. Without personal knowledge of the subject, it's hard to imagine how so much detailed information could be gathered. This clearly suggests a conflict of interest (COI), which violates Wikipedia's policies and another editor has also agreed on this matter . he has put COI tag in the article.Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Your nomination statement counts as your delete vote, so second vote struck. Also unproven coi allegations are not a valid delete argument at AfD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rahmatula786,

Thank you for the information. I’m not sure how to change or handle the COI tag on the article, I have only added the category tags . I was aiming to include this article in the biography category, but it seems to have ended up in Articles for Creation instead is this the problem?. Any guidance on resolving this would be greatly appreciated.

I have assured you that I have no personal relationship or knowledge of the subject. I have compiled the article using the information available from sources and written it to the best of my ability. Please feel free to review the article again and point out any specific personal or biased details that you believe may require correction. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated the article and already expressed these COI concerns above. Just in case you weren't sure, your delete position was in fact already accounted for. Unless you found new information, taking another look and restating that you haven't changed your mind might not affect the discussion a whole lot... Mlkj (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaura Lopez

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable individual. She may have written a (small press/self-published?) book about her time as Lennon and Ono's maid, but neither she nor the book meet our notability guidelines. --wooden superman 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's worth noting that the first discussion outcome was keep, though I realize that was a while ago. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted that after I nominated it, but the arguments from back then seem incredibly weak! --wooden superman 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article years ago). I think this woman meets the notability criteria, a book author and linked to a well known artist. She has been subject of interest in the Spanish speaking media : ABC (2005), Pagina 12 (2005), RTVE (2008), El Español (2023). Her book is not self-published (Hercules de Ediciones is a "classic" publisher founded in 1985). Also, I find that the article is interesting for our readers (specially the recently deleted part of the book's content, I'll open a discussion about that at the article talk page). Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG based on sources above.★Trekker (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the comments and result of the 2007 AfD. Her book pretty much seals the deal, and her association with Lennon during his last four years of life give her recollections and reporting a notability that they may not have had if Lennon had lived. Meets GNG, and the Spanish sources add to the importance of this "average person" who gave the world a glimpse of the long-term historically important and iconic singer/songwriter that otherwise would have been lost. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles related to the Sun

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

Looks like this falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The list contains some pages from the Category:Sun, but omits many other "related" stuff. The inclusion criteria is very vague: all heliophysics satellites are related to the Sun, but also all Sun deities, all Solar eclipses, etc. Artem.G (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Astronomy, and Lists. Artem.G (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Inclusion criterion is too vague and broad. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The footnote template [36] serves this function better than an article page. Svartner (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree with above arguments. This is the type of collated information that navboxes serve best. Praemonitus (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move - How about I move it to User:Ed Poor/sun-articles? Uncle Ed (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You can always just copy it to your user space. Praemonitus (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with the reasons above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unhokhasor Olowu

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

Fails WP:NBIO; article cites no sources (neither do those on Gun and Igbo Wikipedia), and I'm unable to find any. Images were provided by the article creator and primary contributor as "own work" so don't lead to any sources to establish notability. Ligaturama (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Royalty and nobility. Ligaturama (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nom. It appears the subject does not have notability referenced by sufficient reliable secondary sources. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 02:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find ANYTHING anywhere that shows that this topic meet the general notability criteria nor the SNG for monarchs. I am open to change my vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried, nothing… even had to download a 3200-page book only to find nothing, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sure that he was honored and respected by his local community, but that's not the same as notability. We are not a memorial. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Payel Mithai Sarkar

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

No WP:RS found, routine coverage in sites. For Times of India see, WP:TIMESOFINDIA. No significant roles in notable films, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the nominator of this discussion and wish to acknowledge that I am the creator of this page. Upon review, I believe the article is not yet ready for the main space, as the subject may not meet the notability criteria at this time.

Therefore, I request that an administrator close this discussion and either move the article to the draft space or delete it. I intend to work on improving the content and addressing the notability concerns in the future. Thank you for your understanding. --Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garvitpandey1522 You can edit it while in discussion. You should understand this before publishing in the Mainspace, I request you to try with Wikipedia:Articles for creation in future. Taabii (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to verify the roles she played in the television shows listed in the filmography table and with no reliable sources available, subject fails both GNG and NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. The subject's whole career is missing. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–No major roles and fails WP:NACTOR.EmilyR34 (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. I am merging this conversation in to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagadai. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyukodai

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

Clearly a WP:DABPARTIAL situation here. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Japan. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a source for Kyukodai being an abbreviation for Kurume Institute of Technology - and if so, how's it written? I've only found uses of it for Kyushu Institute of Technology (as 九工大, e.g. in names of stations near the campuses). Adam Sampson (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there seem to be slightly more hits for Kyushukodai (九州工大) for the latter... Adam Sampson (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Based on my understanding, "dai" is the Japanese equivalent of saying "uni", so these disambiguation pages are basically for "Kyuko uni". Given the double step from shortening to "Kyuko Uni" to the Japanese usage of "Kyukodai", I do not think this is an appropriate disambiguation page for the English Wikipedia, but I'm happy to be corrected. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Culbertson

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think it's close. Her full CV is available on her website here. She's a full professor at the University of Edinburgh with an h-index of 28, which is quite good for her field. I don't see any major awards or fellowships that could meet C2 or C3 of WP:NPROF, and there's no indication of C4-C6. She has quite a few good media appearances but probably not enough for C7, and a few editorial board positions but none of the editor in chief positions necessary for C8. She also hasn't written any books as far as I can tell so no possibility of an WP:NAUTHOR pass, and I don't see any secondary coverage that could indicate a WP:GNG pass. I'm leaning keep on the basis of WP:NPROF#C1 for a number of well-cited papers, but I think it's probably somewhat borderline. MCE89 (talk) 11:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Scotland and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my earlier unprod; I think her citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, and she holds a Personal Chair of Experimental Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh, which might plausibly be enough for #C5. Membership in the Young Academy of Europe is probably not quite enough for #C3 by itself, but it's close as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Dhania

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

Fails WP:GNG. IPS officer recently promoted to DCP, just doing his duty. Sources only cover transfers and appointment. Nothing showing notability or significant contributions. Junbeesh (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Bihar. Junbeesh (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nominator. Taabii (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG as he got coverage only about his promotion and transfers which is common in such professions and not so unique. Also DCP is not the highest rank for police officers in India. TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Becoming an IPS officer is not about gaining recognition; it’s simply a job. Moreover, this individual fails in both WP:SNG and WP:NBIO. Charlie (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. A regular officer, doing his work, nothing significant for the WP:NOTABILITY Zuck28 (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and agree with other delete votes above. RangersRus (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I support the nominator’s rationale and the delete votes above.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanoti (state)

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

Recreation of article redirected (because unverifiable) after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudhanoti. There are no good sources for a state "Sudhanoti" which was formed in 1407[37]. There are no sources about the supposed founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saddozai[38]. There are no sources for Nawab defeating Bhan in 1407[39].

Related articles like Shams-Ud-Din Khan probably also need checking. Fram (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Pakistan. Fram (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not want to decide on voting, then in the light of these arguments, there are answers to the three questions of User:Fram.

please see the answers to your four questions on the Sidhnauti state,

*:Number one: What are the sources of the state "Sidhnauti" established in 1407?

*:Answer number one is in this link of the book, open it👇 ^[1]

Remember, along with these

references, when two editors in this article Decline G5, has made substantive enough edits to make this not qualify. 2A00:5400:F022:4104:181D:E6FB:DDB:47F8 (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Hello Fram Sir, please see the answers to your four questions on the Sidhnauti state,

Number one: What are the sources of the state "Sidhnauti" established in 1407?

Answer number one is in this link of the book, open it👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up

Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai

The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up

Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?

The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up

I sincerely hope that you will not restrict Wikipedia after conducting a scholarly review. thank you Abdul Wah (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up Abdul Wah (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sardar Shams belonged to Sidhanoti. But in this article he is being made the governor of Poonch, which is really worth investigating. Abdul Wah (talk) 12:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else reading this AfD and the edits surrounding it may be interested in the very recently declined drafts Draft:REGISTER SUDHNOTI and Draft:Yusuf Khan Abakhil Saduzai, about the above "book" (which seems to be unpublished) and its author. Fram (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have a scholarly discussion on the "Siddhnavite" deletion nomination at this time? Instead, link other articles to it. Abdul Wah (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of chaos in the article due to disruptive editing which is also nonsensically copying text from other articles and the source (literally copy pasting, not even summarizing or paraphrasing)

The Register Sudhnoti book says that it is closely based on the original Register Sudhnoti written in the 1960s in the Urdu language, but was not published due to the writers death. It also claims to derive information from two books written in Persian; Maakhaz-e-Sudhnuti and Diropnama. Can someone find any links for these books, or contact the author to upload them to archive.org? Sazzrel (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Sidhanuti Register) is a collection of two books originally written in 1690 and 1855, the source of which is the book Sidhanuti and Dirupnama, the introduction of which can be seen in the link.👇

https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/18/mode/1up

Now this page should be left to the scholarly review of (Fram) Sir, as we have already provided scholarly references on it. Now it is to be seen the competence and honesty of the reviewer as to what decision he makes on it. Abdul Wah (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Sudhanoti region which was 1420 square kilometers, consisting of the present day whole Sudhanoti District and Poonch District, Pakistan

• (1947-) Sudhanoti District = area is 569 square kilometers

•(1407-1830) Former Sudhanoti (region) = area is 1420 square kilometers

One unique aspect of former Sudhanoti region is that the region until the end of the 18th century, it was never part of any external, Poonchi, Indian, or Kashmiri sultanate, despite being surrounded by large empires. KhanShuja313 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence, none whatsoever, for a book "Dirop Nama" written in 1690, as claimed by the "Register"[40]. There is no evidence for the writer of that work, Hafiz Waja Khan. There is equally no evidence for a writer called "Sardar Suba Khan" or for their 1855 book. All of this appears for the first and only time in the Register, and no one at all has ever described the Sudhanoti state which existed from 1407 until the 1830s or so. This is extremely unlikely. The link to the sources for the Register then claims that these two books were translated in Urdu in 1969. Again, I can't find any evidence for this. Fram (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just leaving a note that I have removed a significant amount of material from the article for being blatant copyvio of the aforementioned book after some other edits by one of the article's contributors came to my attention through Copypatrol. The copyvio seems to be so extensive in all revisions of the article that if it wasn't already at AfD I might have considered tagging it as WP:G12. Just leaving a note of this to explain why material was removed during an active AfD — no opinion on notability. MCE89 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is not for Wikipedia to decide on the veracity of the new book, which is privately published. It is WP:PRIMARY source material, which the historians would need to study and write about. Until then, this topic is not ready for an encyclopedia.

By the way Sudhanoti was a subdistrict of Poonch Jagir at the time of the British departure from the Subcontinent, and in course of time, it became a full-fledged district. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both the article creator and the defender above have been separately blocked as sockpuppets (and considering the interplay, I guess there is meatpuppetry between the two sock drawers). The article can be G5 deleted I guess, as created by a sock of a blocked user, and with no remaining editors arguing to keep this article. Fram (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should not happen that the users involved in the discussion should be decided unilaterally by blogging before the discussion is over. I saw that one user (Abdul Loh) had a great discussion and gave the most accurate and comprehensive answers to the three questions of Mr. (Farm). While Mr. (Farm) blogged him and declared his book of references to be fake, it is surprising that Wikipedia users will now decide whether historians' books are authentic or not. 2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new ip address arguing to keep the page is obviously also a sock puppet. Sazzrel (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion and request is that no article on Wikipedia is complete, but it can be made complete and comprehensive by editing over time, so let this article continue to grow and develop Wikipedia. Prove your greatness Farm 2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a post on Facebook in which a person claimed that this article Sakhi Daler Khan , And Chibhal was written by a person on Wikipedia for money, When I opened the links to these articles, I found that none of these Sakhi Daler Khan articles had any references from the beginning, while this article has been on Wikipedia for a long time, and no one has nominated it for deletion? While the second article Chibhal also contained no reference to Bafi except for one Jat? It is surprising that no one nominated it for deletion either? Similarly, when I opened the link to Sidhanuti's article, surprisingly, there were a large number of strong references in the article, but despite this, Sidhanuti's article has been nominated for deletion twice by an editor named Frame? I do not doubt anyone's good intentions but I must say that Sidhanoti is a historical region, but even in 2025, there is not even a single page of it on the English Wikipedia. It is the worst injustice in history that Sidhanoti, despite having an article on Urdu and Arabic Wikipedia^[2] as a former tribal state, is still not accessible on the English Wikipedia. This is a question mark for all of us. Abu amara (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request that when Sidhanoti is a historical region whose national language Urdu Wikipedia has a page on the former state, then why is there no page on the English Wikipedia even in 2025? See the link to the former state Sidhanoti on the Urdu Wikipedia.^[3]. And then decide whether it should have a page on the English Wikipedia or not? Hopefully, after seeing all these facts, consideration will be given to giving access to the Sidhanoti page on the English Wikipedia.Abu amara (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC) Abu amara (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: as a creation by a sockpuppet of blocked user Astore Malik. Furthermore, title blacklist Sudhanoti to avoid AfD evasion/recreation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Historians need to look at the Register to verify its claims. If it is later verified as authentic, then other sources will also be written to allow for a proper Wikipedia article. As of right now all of its claims are alleged, and there shouldn’t be an article unless this changes. Sazzrel (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not for Wikipedia to decide on the veracity of the new book,

2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for Wikipedia to decide on the veracity of the new book, which is privately published. It is WP:PRIMARY source material, Everyone should know this? 2A00:5400:F022:9768:2CCE:5C34:6FB5:AD67 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3can you explain the context in which you used veracity? Your text is being quoted here. Sazzrel (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been validated by established scholars or reputable publishers. So all we can say about the book is that it makes certain claims. We have no idea what to make of them. We have pretty clear guidelines at WP:RS and even more at WP:HISTRS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor of the frame name was also nominated to delete the article Sadhnoti years ago.👉^[4]👈 And now they are nominating it for the second time. Although their response is also given with full references, the rest of the editors should take notice of what they want.46.143.182.2 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC) 46.143.182.2 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time that the same editor has nominated the same article twice 46.143.182.2 (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I just found same page on Urdu Wikipedia, nominated it for deletion. I also googled urdu name but surprised when found nothing about the so called state. Hasan (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^
- *: https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up
  
  *:Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai
  
  *:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇
  
  *:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up
  
  *: Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?
  
  *:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇
  
  *:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up
  
  And Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇
  
  :https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up
^ https://ur.m.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA
^ https://ur.m.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA
^
https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=User_talk:%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7#c-Fram-20240201083500-Nomination_of_Sudhanoti_for_deletion

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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. See AfD history. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of spacewalks since 2025

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

Now that we have had the first private spacewalks, are new spacewalks really notable enough to have a separate list for future ones? While they may still get mentioned, it's rare that they are the focus of much attention any longer. Creating lists for things that happen regularly but aren't notable in themselves or as a group fails WP:LISTN. Fram (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Events, and Spaceflight. Fram (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I missed the memo when spacewalks became as commonplace as walks in the park. For now, they seem to be still notable or at least covered by sources. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 10:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Kejriwal

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole page resembles a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just routine and trivial coverage that doesn't stand out. Procyon117 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found [41], [42], and [43]. Hence the subject is notable per WP:BASIC. Chikwendummesonma (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick source analysis: 1 - Routine coverage of inclusion in India's super-rich list, 2 - The article includes many self-quotes, and it ends with a full curriculum vitae, 3 - Just another routine news on some business partnership. All three references are WP:ROUTINE, Fails WP:SIGCOV. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The promotional tone in the article can be fixed. I reviewed the sources, I can say that the subject has significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources and it meets the WP:NBIO. Taabii (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Chikwendummesonma and in agreement with Taabii, the subject has substantial coverage across multiple reliable sources. In addition, this article from The Economic Times also provides significant coverage and passes WP:NBIO. Monhiroe (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This could pass WP:SIGCOV, but one alone isn't enough. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– Being featured in the 360 ONE Wealth Hurun India Rich List 2023, which identifies individuals with wealth surpassing the combined GDP of countries like Singapore, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, is a major achievement1. Similarly being named a Young Global Leaders by the World Economic Forum (WEF) is also a prestigious recognition. These alone meet WP:ANYBIO. While the Mint newspaper article 2 does contain some self-quotes, it still offers substantial independent content and significant coverage. The ET article also does provide significant coverage. Subject meets both WP:NBIO and WP:ANYBIO. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wolf (musician)

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

I Believe this artcile should be deleted as the article is not notable and the writer of the article has a Conflict of interest. Jake Jakubowski ^Talk 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing me towards the notability requirements of the platform. Several updates have been implemented over the past week that I believe meet the requested changes. 71.88.44.206 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This IP address is Jim Wolf himself, Conflict of interest. If you check the history of this page he has done most of the edits he does himself. Jake Jakubowski ^Talk 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jake-jakubowski - this AFD was never transcluded to the log and was missing the templates. I have tried to fix it for you.Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an Allmusic staff biography which is sigcov sourcing per WP:RSMUSIC: [44]. This profile is sigcov: Korea Herald, which is 5 years after his music became popular so is evidence of WP:SUSTAINED. The New York Times also appears to substantiate the charting in Korea: [45]. Potential here for meeting WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion such as AllMusic and the Korea Herald which support the claim of a hit single on a national chart which therefore passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page… Jim wolf is notable enough to have a page. His accomplishment show as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:CE3F:A306:64A0:90CA:D5AD:881B (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the only well-articulated rationale here is the Keep argument. COI is not a reason to delete an article as it can be addressed through editing and there is no detailed deletion rationale presented. I think that we need to hear from more editors familiar with assessing articles in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from meeting WP:NMUSIC, I can add some more WP:SIGCOV: a review of his debut album in 2006 [46] and two reviews of his 2010 album [47], [48]. There may be more - I haven't searched for all the album titles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking like a firm keep now with the additional sources. I do suspect, however, the article itself needs a major cleanup. ResonantDis_tortion 19:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ResonantDistortion. He meets notability, but this article needs a lot more work. I'm horrified with some of the grammar errors. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Métier

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

Fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Available references mostly discuss product launches, no significant coverage of the company itself and the product themselves do not appear independently notable. Brandon (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NCORP failure; sources are either non-independent or they are WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: NCORP. Could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 10:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pincus

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

I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German article is also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have looked at her artist's file in an art library and found enough ephemera and clippings to confirm the accuracy of her CV under "Exhibitions" on her own website. There isn't a lot of information about her in english since she left Australia for Germany in the late 1990s. She has been interviewed by Australian press and looks like occasionally exhibits here but I haven't found any of her works in the collections of the major government galleries. As mentioned in previous comments she might meet German wikipedia's standards for notability. I don't make a keep or delete comment one way or another on principle because I disagree with wikipedia's biased notability criteria for Australian women artists.LPascal (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LPascal, did you find any clippings of reviews? If so, could you perhaps include them as sources in the article? (Sorry, you probably would have if there were any - this is probably just wishful thinking!) RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few sources to the article, and a bit of info. I'm also finding some paywalled sources, such as this [49], and any articles in the Süddeutsche Zeitung beyond the one I have accessed (which is a review of an exhibition, but doesn't seem to be written by an art critic). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of level crossing crashes#Vietnam. ✗plicit 10:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dien Sanh train crash

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

Fails WP:EVENT. No lasting impact or coverage. All the sources are from March 2015. Whilst number of deaths is not a criterion, we don't generally keep articles with such a low death and injury count. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List_of level crossing crashes#Vietnam where it is covered. This sort of accident is common and there's no need to go into detail. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a major incident in Viet Nam and appears to be a translation of the Vietnamese wiki article, so lacks a WP:LASTING source. I can't find that source since it'd be in Vietnamese, but if it exists this would be an easy keep. SportingFlyer T·C 01:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of level crossing crashes per WP:NOTNEWS. BilletsMauves^€500 18:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep due to the changes made after nominating, invoking HEY. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafz train crash

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Almost 10 years later, all the coverage is from 2015. No lasting coverage or WP:EFFECT. A zero fatality incident. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge) to List of rail accidents (2010–2019). No indication of lasting notability from the German Wikipedia article. Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Updated and expanded, raising WP:HEY. The accident re-entered the news cycle in 2016 when the investigation report of the accident was released. In the new legacy section, the nationwide changes after the accident by the SBB are detailed, some of which relate to the upcoming nationwide implementation of ETCS L2 planned for 2025, which is in favour of WP:EFFECT. The event generated broad coverage by Swiss media, as it was unusual for the Swiss network otherwise considered as one of the safest, and was also picked up by international media for WP:GEOSCOPE. More recent Swiss articles about human error in train driving still consistently mention this accident (e.g. here and here), so it seems to be still present in the public mind. YuniToumei (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per YuniToumei. Changes were made as a direct result of the accident. Mjroots (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

2015 Mount Carbon train derailment

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Almost 10 years later, all the coverage is from 2015. No lasting coverage or WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and West Virginia. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even a basic Google search revealed a report on the accident and a U.S. Department of Justice report from 2018 on the first page of results. The policy quoted here clearly says that events with significant national or international coverage are likely to be notable, independently of whether the coverage is long-lasting; but coverage from 2015 was spread across several months, with news about the investigation into the accident being reported in October, and official reports were issued three years later. This nomination failed to comply with WP:BEFORE in that no attempt to determine whether there were additional sources were made, and it clearly did not pay any attention to the rest of the policy actually cited. The most cursory review and search shows that this was a notable event; no possible justification exists for its deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is a source from 2017 describing the environmental impact of the derailment:

Stout, Scott A.; Papineau, Joseph; Adkins, Matthew (2018-01-01), Stout, Scott A.; Wang, Zhendi (eds.), "Chapter 20 - Chemical Fingerprinting Assessment of the Impact to River Sediments Following the Bakken Crude Oil Train Derailment and Fire, Mount Carbon, West Virginia", Oil Spill Environmental Forensics Case Studies, Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 419–442, ISBN 978-0-12-804434-6, retrieved 2025-01-22

I agree with above voter that the BEFORE seems insufficent, this was the first result on Google Scholar searching the Wikipedia title. Jumpytoo Talk 18:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Titus, Indiana

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

Not getting anything useful on this one; there was a chapel here but there's nothing now, and there never was much. Searching comes up with nothing. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination -Samoht27 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Baker book, cited in some other Indiana false "unincorporated community" articles, has this on page 324 as a post office. It post-dates the 1895 Lippincott's, so won't be in there. It pre-dates the Bulleit 1906 history of Harrison, but that has no mention of it. The Arcadia Publishing book on Corydon mentions no Titus, and the Arcadia books are good guides to whether documentation will turn up. I can find it as a row in an 1899 table of post offices, confirming what Baker says. But "It was a post office." is pretty much all that there is to be had about it from anywhere. Baker gives 1 sentence with dates, and that's it. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bohdan Lazarenko

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player in either English or Ukrainian. Fails WP:GNG, as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the closest to SIGCOV that I could find was Sport Arena, which is just an interview with Lazarenko. Given the level at which he played, it's not surprising that decent coverage is hard to find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn‎. Svartner (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mykola Zuyenko

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player. He seems to fail WP:GNG, as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His Ukrainian bio is extensive and mentions he was named Master of Sport of the USSR (ANYBIO?) and was considered one of the best players in his country at the time. He seems to have made over 100 top-tier appearances in the USSR and later Ukraine. He's basically guaranteed to have SIGCOV out there. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per COMMONSENSE arguments from Beanie above. Giant Snowman 19:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Withdraw—Per Beanie's points above. I think they are right that SIGCOV must exist somewhere, just beyond a few Google searches. It would be nice if those sources would actually show up in the article, though. Anwegmann (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Baylor University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Foster Cherry Award

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

Insufficient evidence can be found that this subject is independently notable - except for the sponsoring organization's own website and materials, the other reliable sources all appear to be passing mentions or entirely promotional in nature as they are announcements that someone has won the award and not substantively about this subject. ElKevbo (talk) 02:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Education, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Baylor University, where as far as I can see it is not mentioned. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. The general widespread, independent secondary coverage needed for notability here is not satisfied. Little other than the award's own primary materials. GuardianH (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without secondary, independent and significant coverage, there is no evidence that this would be appropriate to mention at the proposed merger target page. (I suspect it would be WP:UNDUE.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cree Lake. Cowie Island is barely mentioned at the target article, it would be nice if an editor could expand it's coverage in that article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cowie Island

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Masterhatch (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Masterhatch (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firstly, I want to say I don't do this very often so if I make a mistake or miss a step, please forgive me. I do not believe this island meets notability requirements. I can only find one source and there seems to be nothing special about this very small island. Masterhatch (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cree Lake; see also WP:GEONATURAL. There's not much to be found online about this island apart from placename databases and weather websites. No hits on ProQuest, Google Scholar returns 1 citation (no preview), and Google Books returns a number of hits, but most are for the unrelated "Cowie's Island". Mind matrix 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Cree Lake) seems reasonable. I searched several reference databases through my library and nothing about this Cowie Island except name-only mentions in some old books. Similar results on Google/Scholar/Books today. This might just be a name on a map with nothing more ever written about it. --Here2rewrite (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Just noting that a version exists in Draft space that editors can work on in case this agency gets closer to existing. But the draft should pass through WP:AFC or it could be tagged CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External Revenue Service

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

I don't believe this meets the notability criteria. The "proposed agency" was mentioned by Trump in a social media post, so it's not clear it will actually be created; no other politician or policymaker has seriously discussed the proposal, and no legislative action has been taken to create the agency. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Likely WP:TOOSOON for mainspace as a future planned US government department [sic], but Draft:External Revenue Service should be developed with relevant material in case this becomes a real plan. Novemberjazz 20:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no valuable content in the article. We don't have any details of this hypothetical agency, and the current piece reads like it was written by a pro-Trump LLM:

This initiative is part of Trump's broader trade policy, which includes imposing tariffs on imports from foreign countries to enforce an "America-first" approach.Trump announced this plan on his Truth Social network, emphasizing the need for foreign entities to pay their "fair share" from trade profits.The creation of this service reflects Trump's commitment to his campaign promises regarding trade levies.
CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:39, 15 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Social media trends aren't reliable sources and this feels like a joke rejected by Merry Melodies c. 1939 that we've all made once and then said 'never using that joke' again. Nate • (chatter) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:SPECULATION - Please see History of taxation in the United States. I believe this would take an act of the US Congress to create - the very attempt of which would create a lot of ticked off constituents. Either way, this is not likely to bear fruition anytime soon. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113827650534234057 but now Time https://time.com/7206986/trump-external-revenue-service-tariffs-taxes/ and UPI https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-proposes-external-revenue-service-to-tax-foreign-sources/ar-AA1xcB5s?ocid=BingNewsSerp, Reuters, CBS, etc. are covering it. Arbeiten8 (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, CBS, et al. are covering Trump's social media post, not the actual agency. There's still zero indication that this agency will every be established, or that anyone will even try to establish it. It's total nonsense. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., WP:TOOSOON, and WP:CRYSTAL. Sal2100 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. We do not have to cover everything Trump says. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a serious plan by someone who is about to be president of the United States. It's being covered by media outlets and treated like a serious plan too. Of course, the idea is crazy, but we also have an article for a fictitious cabinet department named after an internet meme headed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, so I don't think this is too far out there. We have even decided to keep articles for random Twitter shitposters, and this — a serious plan proposed by the president-elect — is certainly more notable than that. It should be noted that the article itself needs significant reworking regardless. Gore2000 (talk) 20:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a serious proposal. DOGE has been pretty widely discussed by members of Congress and the media–there's even a caucus. Additionally, Trump can (and plans to) establish DOGE as an advisory committee by executive order. On the other hand, the "ERS" would require Congressional legislation, and it's not clear that he plans to introduce, or would be able to pass, such legislation.

Without follow-up by Trump, this is an article about a social media post. That's not notable. See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign policy of the second Donald Trump administration, in the tariffs section. That article will be merited in a couple of days. Alternately merge to Second presidential transition of Donald Trump. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign policy article should cover actually policy, not random tweets. This proposal, unless someone takes steps to implement it, will be totally irrelevant in a few news cycles. It's too soon to have an article discuss it. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is right now promising to establish the External Revenue Service in his inauguration speech to perform many functions of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Arbeiten8 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's just mentioned it in his inauguration speech and given the likes of the Associated Press and Time have mentioned it, means I don't think CRYSTAL/TOOSOON applies here since it seems more than likely it will happen in the coming days. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems more than likely than" is the definition of WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. But, even if he does introduce legislation creating this agency soon, it's a long road to passage. Pending legislation doesn't meet the notability requirements. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- CRYSTAL clearly says "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". Which clearly is the case here given the verified coverage before and after President Trump's inaguration speech. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, like Department of Government Efficiency Splatterxl – talk 20:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I discussed above, there's a key difference between DOGE and ERS. DOGE can be created by executive order, but this agency would require Congressional legislation. Besides, DOGE already exists, but this is just an idea. An idea doesn't warrant an article. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the press coverage and the fact that it's been mentioned in the inauguration speech. Aŭstriano (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still doesn't meet notability requirements. He mentioned it, but that doesn't mean he'll move forward with it or that the agency will end up being created. If a bill is introduced or actual action is taken, we should reassess, but for now this isn't notable. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for the reasons enumerated in my original post and subsequent discussion CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Economic policy of the second Donald Trump administration, and yes, I know that this page is currently a redirect to the main DJT article, but it's an article which will certainly have to be created soon. At this point the proposal is a notable part of his larger economic and fiscal policy agenda, and was mentioned in his inaugural address. But I do agree that it's not yet quite at the point of warranting an article of its own, in large part since there simply aren't yet many details known about this proposal. But if/when it's further developed, this could well change. -2003:CA:8723:6551:3D79:C1D4:E66F:E1D6 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:CRYSTAL as we do not need a separate article on everything Trump throws out along the way. If anything ever comes of it, OK, but not now. Mangoe (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Right now this is just something Trump mentioned. If something happens then sure, but currently it's a bit too soon to know if that something will actually happen. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Both articles pass WP:NPROF C6. The school might not be large or an academic powerhouse but it is a regionally accredited state run institution of higher education. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Gilbertson

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

This is essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (of ERG article): It seems to me that the central question is whether C6 of WP:NPROF is met by ERG due to their having served as the president of Saginaw Valley State University and of Johnson State College (now part of Vermont State University). Since the former school offers a significant number of master's degrees and three doctorates (DNP; see https://www.svsu.edu/graduateprograms/), it seems to me that that the answer is yes. I qualify this as a weak keep because this is not an R1 university and does not appear to be historically significant. I do agree that WP:GNG is not met, and if the page is to remain it needs significant editing so as to not present as a resume. I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF. The other page (about JMR) should be considered on its own merits; I am unsure whether we are supposed to be discussing both of them here. Qflib (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the 6 criteria of NPROF need to be met in order to establish notability; please read it carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was referring only to C6 of NPROF, so academic citations are immaterial. I also specifically pointed out that "I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF." I stand by my weak keep recommendation; if other senior editors come on here and convince me otherwise, I am open to input. Qflib (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C6 rationale, as president of a mid-sized college/university. I additionally note that I found several local newspaper sources: [50][51][52]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [53][54]. It's weak for a GNG case, but it helps support the NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of both. Even if not technically passing the PROF test, the presidents of medium size state colleges probably will get significant coverage in their state's media. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the repeated use of the word weak, consensus looks like keep but also looks weak so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a !delete for me, not passing PROF, the rest doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Saginaw News has a good deal of coverage on him, e.g. this (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The same for Ryder, e.g. this and this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not convinced at all of SVSU being a "major" institution; it has only ~1350 papers attached to it across all time periods and fields indexed by Scopus (even Saginaw Cooperative Hospitals, Inc. has 66 papers; compare also to R2 schools American University (~15000 papers) and Yeshiva University (~59000)). So I would not say he is a C6 pass. Newspaper coverage of him might support GNG, however I haven't analyzed those sources yet. JoelleJay (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gharida Farooqi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mainly covered in gossip media and controversy like "child abuse" is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Gheus (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought and remembered that I had edited this Wikipedia article in the past. So I used 'View history' TAB to look ... and found my edits from 2017. To my surprise, someone had vandalized and totally blanked all my newspaper references from 2017. Today, I have restored my relevant and reliable newspaper references plus added some new ones. The above Deletion nominator, Gheus, was right in nominating it for deletion because I saw that nothing but 'gossip media' references were left at this article. Now, I leave it to the Wikipedia community to decide whether to 'delete' or 'keep' this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This journalist has been active in TV journalism since 2004. My Google search on her turned up many newspaper and other reliable sources. To give a balanced view, I did not remove content from anybody else. In my view, this journalist is very notable and meets WP:GNG now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG, consider trying Wp:BEFORE.

Zuck28 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nordea. There is not a strong consensus for this outcome and it could easily be challenged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Norge

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. The notability banner has remained unresolved for 12 years. Cinder painter (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Large bank in Norway, but redirect to Nordea for the time being. Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato Bank

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

I don't see how this defunct Chinese bank passes WP:NCORP. No reliable sources or significant coverage Cinder painter (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Business Bank, at least partially. One of ~100 California chartered banks folding is not insignificant. Brandon (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Daysog, Rick (2006-11-09). "Isle company weighs $31M bid". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "A California banking company on an expansion spree has made an unsolicited $31 million bid for a majority stake in the parent company of Honolulu-based Finance Factors. ... TFC is the parent of Alhambra, Calif.-based TomatoBank, which operates five branches in the Los Angeles area and has about $350 million in assets. The bank, known as InterBusiness Bank until it changed its name in August, was founded six years ago by Los Angeles physician Stephen Liu. The bank specializes in lending to Los Angeles' Asian-American and Hispanic communities. ... The bid for Finance Enterprises underscores TomatoBank's aggressive growth strategy."
2. Kuehner-Hebert, Katie (2006-08-14). "Fruit? Vegetable? Neither; CEO: New name appeals to target markets". American Banker. Vol. 171, no. 155. pp. 1–5. EBSCOhost 21948502. Factiva AMB0000020060814e28e00003. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "Dr. Stephen Liu likes to compare the bank he co-founded six years ago to a tomato. ... In fact, the medical doctor-turned-banker likes the comparison so much that last week the $350 million-asset InterBusiness Bank in Alhambra, Calif., officially changed its name to TomatoBank. Dr. Liu, its chairman and chief executive officer, said he had always thought the old name was too generic, and he has been trying to persuade the board to change it for years to give the bank more visibility in the ethnic communities it targets in and around Los Angeles. The new name is not a complete stretch. The bank has used a tomato as its logo since its inception, and its Web address has been www.tomatobank.com since 2001. Dr. Liu said the word "tomato" resonates with Asian-American customers, because banks in Asia are often named after fruit, vegetables, or flowers grown in their region, and Asian-Americans particularly love tomatoes. ... Richard A. Soukup, a partner with the Chicago office of the consulting firm, Plante & Moran PLLC, said that the TomatoBank name is "refreshingly innovative" and will definitely be a conversation starter. "But time will tell if it has legs and branding appeal." Ted Salame, the president of BrandEquity International in Newton, Mass., thinks it will. ... Dr. Liu's bank actually had done quite well under the InterBusiness name. Its assets have nearly doubled in the last two years. Last year its net income rose 83%, to $3.7 million. Its efficiency ratio, its return on assets, and its net interest margin are all above average for banks in its asset class, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data."
3. Allen, Mike (2007-10-01). "TomatoBank Targets Latino Customers, Opens Chula Vista Branch". San Diego Business Journal. Vol. 28, no. 40. p. 3. EBSCOhost 27088532. Factiva SDBJ000020071026e3a100006.
  The article notes: "In the world of bank names that are mundane and commonplace, Tomato-Bank, which recently opened an office in Chula Vista, stands out. The Alhambra-based commercial bank was formerly known as InterBusiness Bank until last year when it rebranded itself. ... The change appears to be working as Tomato's total assets sprouted up 26 percent over the year ended June 30 to $445 million, while its loans increased 36 percent over the same period to $341 million. ... Buoyed by the bank's growth, it decided to open a branch in the San Diego area, the first branch outside Los Angeles County. ... To attract its targeted customers, TomatoBank's first branch is housed inside an El Tigre Supermarket, a supermarket chain based in Escondido that caters to Latinos. ... Hans Ganz, chief executive of Chula Vista-based Pacific Trust Bank with some $770 million in assets, had not heard of TomatoBank, but said their strategy could be effective. Ganz said other banks have been successful at targeting specific minority groups, such as Nara Bank in Los Angeles, which targets Korean Americans."
4. Tanaka, Rodney (2007-02-25). "Banking with a personal touch". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Factiva xKRTGB00020070227e32q00001. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "Step into TomatoBank in Alhambra and you may not realize you're in a bank, since you don't wait to interact with a teller standing behind Plexiglas. ... The company also focuses on community service. The bank's latest partnership is with the Urban Education Partnership, which focuses on helping high-poverty, multi-cultural Los Angeles County schools with academic achievement. ... The bank, which has 75 employees, has grown 40 percent to 50 percent each year, he said. The company has six offices and plans to open two more in Arcadia and San Diego."
5. Schachar, Natalie (2015-11-11). "In Merger, Interesting Name of TomatoBank to Disappear". Los Angeles Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "The parent company of L.A.’s Royal Business Bank announced Tuesday that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the parent of TomatoBank. Assuming the transaction is completed as expected in the first quarter next year, what may be L.A.’s most interesting bank name will disappear thereafter. TomatoBank, which operates six full-service branches in Los Angeles and Orange County, primarily serves Asian-American communities, the same demographic focus of Royal Business Bank. TFC Holding Co., TomatoBank’s parent, reported assets of about $488 million, deposits of $421 million and shareholders’ equity of $60.5 million as of Sept. 30. All TomatoBank branches will eventually be converted to Royal Business Bank."
6. Tanaka, Rodney (2007-05-30). "Ripe investments". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Factiva KRTGB00020070531e35v0002t. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "TomatoBank planted its latest seed, opening a new branch in Arcadia Saturday. TomatoBank has eight branches, including regional offices in Industry and Alhambra. ... Founded in 2000, has about $410 million in assets and is expected to approach $1 billion by the end of the decade, according to the bank. ... TomatoBank is also active in the community, providing summer internships through the Urban Education Partnership and sponsoring financial literacy programs for the American Junior Golf Association."
7. Daysog, Rick (2006-11-22). "Finance Factors' owner rejects TFC takeover bid". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "Finance Enterprises Ltd. said its 12-member board voted unanimously last week to turn down TFC Holdings Inc.'s $1,000-per-share offer for 31,000 shares, or 51 percent of the company's stock. ... TFC is the parent of Alhambra, Calif.-based TomatoBank, which has $350 million in assets and operates five branches in the Los Angeles area. TomatoBank, known as InterBusiness Bank until it changed its name in August, was founded six years ago by Los Angeles physician Stephen Liu. The bank specializes in lending to Los Angeles' Asian-American and Hispanic communities."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tomato Bank (traditional Chinese: 宏基銀行; simplified Chinese: 宏基银行) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of people legally executed in Queensland. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Fanny Hardwick

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, after the execution it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1901). There is one very brief mention in an academic article from this year in an article about Australian executions, but otherwise nothing. If we had some article like "list of people executed by Australia" I would suggest a redirect to that, but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people legally executed in Queensland. There are a couple of sources from after 1901, but agree that it's not enough to meet WP:NEVENT. MCE89 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89 For purposes of consensus building I agree with redirect (I would have suggested it if I knew that page existed...)

Out of curiosity what are the other post-1901 sources? Some stuff on Trove? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah nothing much, just a couple of articles from 1902 [55] and 1904 [56] that strike me as basically that era's equivalent of sensationalised true crime stories. Nothing to suggest any real notability, and they're close enough to the murder that they don't really suggest any lasting coverage. MCE89 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article mentioned above in addition the redirect. Or at least an inclusion of the references.Topic does not seem to have lasting importance. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Baltimore City Council. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baltimore City Council District 1

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

Unclear what makes this special from the other districts or pass WP:GNG. Redirect to Baltimore City Council. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and Maryland. Skynxnex (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom, city council wards are not generally notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Reywas92^Talk 15:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Di Thorley

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

Simply being mayor does not guarantee notability. She does not meet WP:NPOL, a small amount of coverage eg her commenting on water issues but insufficient WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is correct that being mayor doesn't guarantee notability, but I think there's just about enough SIGCOV. She's continued to get quite a bit of coverage as a candidate and potential candidate [57] [58] [59] [60] and she is still regularly profiled in discussions about water in Australia [61] [62] [63]. There's also quite a bit of coverage of her as mayor from the early 2000s on Proquest, but I'm having trouble tracking down whether the Toowoomba Chronicle from that period has been digitised (I expect that it would contain unambiguous SIGCOV if anyone is able to access articles from that period). Overall I think it's enough to constitute the "significant press coverage" that WP:NPOL requires of local political figures. If others disagree, I'm undecided whether the best ATD would be a merge/redirect to 2016 Toowoomba South state by-election or to 2006 Toowoomba Water Futures referendum. MCE89 (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing provided above by MCE89. Passes WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon M. Kirby

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evo-psych is a high-citation field but still I think his citation counts [64] are enough for WP:PROF#C1. He holds a personal chair at the University of Edinburgh, possibly enough for #C5. He is a Fellow of the British Academy [65], a clear pass of #C3. And multiple reviews of multiple books [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] give him another case for notability through WP:AUTHOR. I don't know what WP:BEFORE the nominator tried to produce this WP:VAGUEWAVE towards our notability guidelines but it wasn't enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also member of Academia Europaea [73] is another pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Nominator deserves a trout for this inept nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTHOR per above. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to hold an established chair rather than a personal chair, so meets WP:NACADEMIC #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unambiguously passes NPROF C3 via his Academia Europaea membership, and I would agree that he passes C1 and C5 as well. Botterweg (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Lars Kinström. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Kinström

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

Doesn’t seem to meet WP:BIO. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Music, and Sweden. _signed,SpringProof ^talk 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't access Svenskt Klavikordbygge 1720–1820, but the other two sources in the article just contain trivial mentions (the first source just cites the second and third sources). Can't find anything other than trivial mentions in my search, but historical bios are relatively likely to have hard-to-find sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She doesn't have an entry on the Swedish Wikipedia, although her husband and brother (both also instrument makers) do. She's briefly mentioned here and here (under her maiden name) in entries on her husband, which just say that she continued operating his workshop after his death. She's also briefly mentioned here in an entry on her brother. Sadly it seems like she's basically been treated as a side note in sources about her male relatives. Hopefully someone else is able to find something more substantial, because from what I could find I'm not sure there's enough in the historical record to warrant an article about her. MCE89 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the obvious thing to do here is to translate the article on her husband Lars Kinström from Swedish wiki: he is certainly notable; and then to merge Christina into that. She may well have done sterling work in her late husband's company, but it seems unlikely that enough has been recorded about her to make a stand-alone article possible. If anyone else feels like doing the translation, that'd be great, otherwise I can do that and then the merge will only take a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to newly translated article Lars Kinström as above. I've already done the merge so all that's needed is consensus here and we can make her article into a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] 
*: https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up

*:Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up

*: Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up

And Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇

:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up

[2] *: https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/48/mode/1up

*:Number two: There are no sources about the founder of the state, Jassi Khan Saduzai

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/35/mode/1up

*: Number three: Is there no source to defeat Nawab Jas Khan's brother in 1407?

*:The answer to this question is also in this link of the book, open it👇

*:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/32/mode/1up

And Please also see these references, open the book link, thank you.👇

:https://archive.org/details/register-sudhnoti-english-version_20250110/page/33/mode/1up

[2] ttps://ur.m.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

[3] ttps://ur.m.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=%D8%B3%D8%AF%DA%BE%D9%86%D9%88%D8%AA%DB%8C_%D8%B1%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA

[4] 
https://en.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=User_talk:%D9%85%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%A7#c-Fram-20240201083500-Nomination_of_Sudhanoti_for_deletion

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

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 January 22

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Primary topic with only one other topic:

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