Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 28

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 Nomination withdrawn. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Salter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sourced by a few primary sources for over a decade. No indication of why she would pass NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. I could only find one review of one of her books [1]. Her other book Prison Blues was nominated for an award that it lost, but there is zero reviews of it that I could find, so even a stand alone page for the book is not actually possible to write, assuming that the nomination could make the book notable. Badbluebus (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Psychology, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I quickly checked the obvious suspects (Kirkus, Publishers Weekly, Google Scholar) and found seven reviews of her fiction and non-fiction books. Easy WP:AUTHOR pass. pburka (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka. The reviews added are more than enough for a WP:NAUTHOR pass. There also seem to be at least half a dozen additional reviews on Google Scholar for her non-fiction book Predators. And she quite possibly has a case for WP:NPROF#C1 with a few of her books having four digit or high-three digit citation counts. MCE89 (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. Badbluebus (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Massachusetts, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:55, 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 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Knowledge Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article has no citations actually about the subject except for primary sources. Non-government/non-department of defense sources aren't about AFKN, they're about knowledge management. Fails WP:GNG. v/r - TP 20:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the original author. This can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpoteet (talk • contribs) 01:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were an early contributor but not the article creator. And there have been too many contributors to make this article eligible for CSD G7. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Penn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted article was for a namesake. This person fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kenya. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: per nom and similar to Ernest Buule, Satiender Sehmi, Dismus Onyiego, Michael Carr-Hartley, and Muharud Mukasa, all from the same editor FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This database is interesting, and it cites a source "EAWL" for a bunch of different things about his life they list. He also seems to have been a Kenyan government official who was the Secretary of the Board of Inquiry and Magistrate Third Class. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article did not want to be extended and expanded since its creation. AgusTates (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Rice People#Cast. ✗plicit 00:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mom Soth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Improperly sourced (by one external link to IMDB) article for non-notable actor. WP:BEFORE does not yield any reliable sources that verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Cambodia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Rice People#Cast: a very significant role in a very notable film. If others wish to keep per WP:NACTOR (a lot of coverage about the film, including some on his role, exists), considering his appearances in the 3 shorts by Norodom Sihanouk, I am not opposed to the idea. If some judge that he meets WP:BASIC trough the various mentions of his role, also not opposed. -Mushy Yank. 21:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - only because I suspect there would be more sources in Khmer; unfortunately I don't know the best way to search for them, and the Khmer Wikipedia does not seem to have a corresponding article. Also I might consider that such sources are more likely to exist in offline rather than online form. I would also be happy, as Mushy Yank suggests, with a {{Redirect with possibilities}} to Rice People#Cast. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Rice_People#Cast. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 08:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Ferreira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. There is this, although much of it seems like paraphrasing his own words ("He is also fully committed to...", "In the medium term he wants to...", "Johan has stated..."). Sources in the article are all press releases, primary sources, interviews and/or passing mentions of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources available do not provide WP:SIGCOV and are only passing mentions of his various appointments TNM101 (chat) 05:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - interviews and the like can supplement and support an article, but we require independent, reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Crabtree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No non-routine independent coverage. I hastily withdrew my last AfD because I thought that assistant secretaries had inherent/presumptive notability, but there is precedent against this, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce D. Jette (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne Wojciechowski. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Environment, and North Dakota. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 01:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only run of the mill coverage. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NPOL. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 31 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 Dhaka. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NJOURNALS (journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) and lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Reconrabbit 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Academic journals. Reconrabbit 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Philosophy, Music, History, Law, Politics, Business, Religion, Science, Biology, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom.CharlesWain (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note that WP:NJOURNALS states that "It is possible for a journal not to be notable under this guidance but still meet WP:GNG for other reasons", so failing WP:NJOURNALS is not necessarily a reason to delete. Also, WP:NJOURNALS#C2 says that "The comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language", and it may be the case that Bangla journals are not well covered. I found this article [2] that says that none of the academic journals published by the University of Dhaka are indexed by leading databases. Interestingly, the authors of that article did not have access to data about Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika / ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় পত্রিকা during their research. I think that we would need to look at Bangladeshi publications (whether in English or in Bangla) to assess whether this journal might meet WP:GNG. Hopefully someone with such access will participate here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It does not look like this journal published by the University of Dhaka is indexed by any databases, from what MIAR tells me. It may be the case that this is a candidate to redirect to University of Dhaka rather than deletion, as was the case for the Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies, the only member of Category:Azerbaijani-language journals, which redirects to Ministry of Science and Education (Azerbaijan). Reconrabbit 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: RebeccaGreen you are right that a journal can be notable even if it misses NJournals. However, in that case it has to be shown to meet WP:GNG and I don't see evidence for that either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the University of Dhaka.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking my previous recommendation to concur with Vinegarymass911 and recommending a merge to University of Dhaka. Reconrabbit 20:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to University of Dhaka as recommended by Vinegarymass911. Unable to find sources that would justify a stand alone article. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there is nothing to rescue. AgusTates (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: It should be merged with the University of Dhaka, no WP:RS available for a standalone article, not even in Bengali language. Barseghian Lilia (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 21:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Kapfenberger SV season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

previously nominated as part of a bundled AfD which reached no consensus, largely as editors disagreed with bundling. Renominating on the same basis as the previous AfD, this article is incomplete, poorly referenced and shows no evidence of notability. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one of those articles we can probably have - a quick look of Austrian newspapers shows the second league gets significant coverage - but it's also not sourced very well, which violates NOTSTATS on its face. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: can you share the significant coverage you found because I can't find much of it, it doesn't get regular match reports at kicker.at or skysportaustria.at, and given the league gets average crowds of around 900^[1] (a lower average than the National League North^[2]) I'd doubt it gets enough coverage to warrant club season articles. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just articles like this one, which isn't 2022–23. Average attendance isn't the issue, it's whether we can adequately source the season. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That appears pretty WP:ROUTINE imo, doesn't discuss games in any depth. The National League, for example gets much more in depth coverage, as does the German Regionalliga ([3]) but generally club seasons at that level won't be considered notable. And no, average attendance isn't strictly relevant here, but it feels unlikely that a club with an average gate of less than 1,000 will yield coverage significant enough warrant a club season article. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look that closely, to be honest. And Regionalliga seasons could be notable depending on the team. My only point stands: if someone wanted to save this, it's probably possible. SportingFlyer T·C 02:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG and lacks of WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Per above. Anwegmann (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – violates WP:NOT. Also the limited information available is contradictory. C679 15:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 08:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pierluigi Manciniart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An apparently promotional biography for a minor non-notable artist. I find no evidence that he passes WP:NARTIST, and no evidence for that matter of passing WP:GNG. The sources are a website that lets artists promote themselves ("Sei un Artista in cerca di visibilità?"), a business network website that appears to accept user submissions, promotional items (not critical reviews) for gallery displays ([4], [5]), a defunct WP:SPS art blog and a page that does not mention him at all. I didn't find anything else in the WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Italy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No coverage found at all in news sources, Gsearch is the subject's website and social media. Does not meet notability for artists. Oaktree b (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  　　　All artist sources are notability from Google

  Why you can say does not notabibity for artist from Gsearch ？

  contradictory 115.39.131.25 (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your search. I am aware that if you use google search the most relevant results are sns accounts, thats how the algorithm works. It is true that the online resources are little at the moment, however not all sources appear on google. Books and some newspapers do not appear in google.

  I still do not believe that the results of google search can define someones notability in the terms of Wikipedia. Denni045 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed explanation. I did delete the archived source and the non relevant one.

I understood that some sources might not be defined reliable or completely independent, but it is true that there are some sources that do fall into that category. There is a book by a notable Italian publisher and a newspaper by a notable Japanese publisher.

We are continuously trying find more notable and reliable independent sources that might improve the notability of the article, and we have some that are coming in the near future that follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Denni045 (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – The subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for artists, as evidenced by coverage in reliable sources. There is a book by Mondadori(an italian famous publisher) and a newspaper by Yomiuri Shinbun (a japanese famous newspaper), which discusses the artist's work in detail. Further sources will be added in the near future to improve the notability. Denni045 (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. The book that was added appears to be a venue for artists to promote themselves (artists submit applications and some are "selected" to be part of the book). I am unable to find the Japanese newspaper article but a "gallery information section" seems like routine and/or non-independent coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ARTIST the subject has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I didn't find any RS online. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate all the reviewers and will try the best to improve manciniart notability in the future with more critical reviews from notable art critic and museum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:2651:641:C500:E532:ACFA:F9F4:89E8 (talk) 12:34, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXKS-FM (CDO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the WP:GNG. Also a recreation of the soft-deleted DXKS-FM (Cagayan de Oro) (nomination), which should be the article title if this were a notable topic. Constant recreation by PH radio/TV editors suggests salting may be required of both titles. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Not seeing anything in a search that would help to make this reach GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No proof of notability, fails WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 20:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. It's not significant apart from being a local radio station. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH as it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. NXcrypto Message 02:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are only two references — one of which I couldn't open — and they are improperly formatted--Saul McGill (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 21:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbo Balogun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable jeweler, coverage is based on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't know when winning a Goldman Sachs scholarship becomes a yardstick for Wikipedia Notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and also non notable for a business woman. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article from the BBC has some background information but lacks independence from the subject. The rest appears to be interviews from unreliable sources. The awards won are not a viable yardstick to presume automatic notability. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clop (erotic fan art) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

To put it simply, the fact that there exists an article for "Clop" on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Clop, as a subgenre of a subgenre of pornography, fails to meet any expectations of relevance or importance a Wikipedia page ought to have. This kind of page explaining a specific form of internet phenomena belongs on Know Your Meme. At best, it warrants a small subsection on a larger Brony or MLP-related article. If there's going to be an entire Clop article, there may as well be articles for Sonichu and Sneed's Feed and Seed. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Patriot of Canuckistan (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep the existence of an article being "unbeliavable" in your opinion doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. Fact of the matter is that the topic clearly meets WP:GNG and even received academic attention. Skyshiftertalk 19:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as a defective AfD request. The entire reasoning is WP:IDONTLIKEIT that the article exists, with a handful of WP:OTHERSTUFF as well. The article is properly sourced and denotes a unique subgenre/subculture. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It has 17 sources, which ones do you have an issue with, or in which section? The FiM fandom article is already 170k bytes and around 10k words, I assume this was spun off as others felt there was enough sources for notability and that it would be too clunky as just a section on that page (see also other articles linked in the fandom section of Template:My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic). I'm also not sure I understand what you're trying to say is "unbelievable" here, there are a lot of articles about pornographic subgenres on here (see Template:Pornography). Ringtail Raider (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy Keep since User:Patriot of Canuckistan isn't going to elaborate I guess. Ringtail Raider (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Sexuality and gender, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Textbook WP:IDLI, and we're not any kind of purity police; Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and it would be best to just find another interest area here entirely if this one makes you uncomfortable. Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and trout nom for a frivolous AfD of a well sourced article. Yeah, it's a weird topic. No, this is not a deletion rationale. --cyclopia^speak! 09:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep fuck tha hayters and neighsayers

174.48.68.98 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Yes, this is a bit of a.... strange topic. However, this is a strange topic that's definitely notable and has 17 references (all of which check out to me) User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 14:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 New Zealand women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails SPORTSCRIT. No references to SIGCOV, etc, etc. JayCubby 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and New Zealand. JayCubby 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to @Schwede66, who preferred I start an AfD. JayCubby 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - found this, this, and this, but coverage isn't independent or extensive enough to warrant keeping. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of New Zealand women's international footballers as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is her name mentioned there? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes in the table with appearance number and debut. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – Per Joseph2302. Svartner (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of New Zealand women's international footballers: per Joseph2302. CNC (talk) 19:50, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable attorney. In my WP:BEFORE, I found mentions like this and this but they are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV requirement. Gheus (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per above and WP:TNT. His work with PLI could be notable, but the formatting and peacock language makes rescuing this page into an article beyond my patience. Bearian (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that the absence of one's patience or motivation to rewrite a poorly written article about a notable subject is not, in and by itself, a valid deletion criterion, regardless of the popularity of the WP:TNT essay. Cropping a promotionally-written page down to a stub requires very little effort, and no administrative tools. Please focus on the notability of the topic here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlem Arfaoui Tartir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable academic. Lacks high-quality secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless there are sources in Arabic that I've missed. She seems to have written two books, but they seem to be self-published and don't have any reviews that I can find. She doesn't have any other research activity (e.g journal publications, employment at a university) as far as I can tell, so no possibly of a WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF pass. There's some secondary coverage but it all strikes me as likely paid/promotional coverage (e.g. [6] [7] [8]). I don't think the awards she's won are particularly notable either. So unless there's Tunisian SIGCOV that I've missed, I think she likely fails WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 01:41, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sundaraja Sitharama Iyengar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Obvious vanity article. Subject does not appear to be notable, and the article is written in a completely unencyclopedic tone. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Computing, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. The article has been carefully researched and adheres to factual accuracy, providing verifiable information about the subject's contributions and achievements. While we understand concerns about tone and notability, the subject's impact in their field meets the criteria for inclusion based on widely recognized accomplishments, of the last 5 decades.

Regarding the tone, we appreciate your input and will review the content to ensure it aligns with an encyclopedic style, focusing on neutrality and objectivity. If there are specific sections you believe require improvement, we welcome detailed suggestions to enhance the article further.

Your insights are valuable, and we’re committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and neutrality. Thank you for helping us improve! 2601:582:C000:72D0:2D34:5475:AA22:BF20 (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the deletion of this page.

Dr. Sundaraja Sitharama Iyengar is a highly renowned computer scientist with a distinguished career spanning over Five decades.

He has made groundbreaking contributions to computer science, including sensor networks, parallel computing, and artificial intelligence. His work has been recognized globally, and he has mentored and guided countless students and researchers, many of whom have gone on to make significant contributions in their fields.

Dr. Iyengar’s contributions are not only academic but also practical, impacting various industries and shaping the future of computer science. He has been featured in prestigious media outlets, including World News, NY Times, Washington Times, ANI News, Press Trust of India, Times of India), and Deccan Herald, among others, highlighting his influence and impact.

This page serves as a valuable resource for readers to learn about his contributions, legacy, and the evolution of computer science. Deleting it would remove an important source of knowledge and recognition of his work.

I urge that the page be retained, and I am happy to help improve its tone or add more reliable references to meet Wikipedia’s standards. 2601:582:C000:72D0:6533:86E8:B6EB:2FBA (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Heavy citations pass WP:PROF#C1, fellow of IEEE ACM AAAS and AIMBE is a quadruple pass of #C3, and named chair passes #C5. The version as nominated was heavily promotional but WP:TNT is not in play because there was a better version to revert to from November 2024; I have done that and removed some other promotional material. It could probably use additional cleanup beyond that but WP:DINC. Also, to the anonymous editor above, your AI-written walls of text are counterproductive to the case. Please desist. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per David Eppstein, clear pass on WP:NPROF#C1, C3 and C5. Current version looks fine now that the promotional material has been removed. MCE89 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I still think the tone of the article is pretty promotional but the subject definitely meets WP: NPROF on the basis of a strong publication record. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the pass of WP:NPROF is strong both on his citations and awards. While the page needs better sourcing, this AfD should not have been made. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per David Eppstein, whom I trust and respect, and for co- creation of a notable mathematical algorithm, the Brooks–Iyengar algorithm. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cherinet Hariffo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. There is also a history of promotion/COI [9], [10], [11]. Gheus (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ethiopia. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:49, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Master Plan (Chris Brooks album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Self published album by artist I have also just submitted to AfD. Can't find any reviews or mentions of album nor artist. Orange sticker (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Orange sticker (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or redirect to the musician if he happens to survive his own concurrent AfD). I can find no reliable pro reviews of the album or other commentary, with only a basic listing at AllMusic and occasional mentions at various prog rock directories. Prog Archives has a review but it has lots of typos and probably no editorial oversight. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NALBUM, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources]]. Dan arndt (talk) 08:25, 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brooks (guitarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent sources, books and albums all self-published, does not meet wp:gng or wp:musicbio. Been templated for improvements since 2016. Orange sticker (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also an AfD for one of his albums at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Master Plan (Chris Brooks album). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Orange sticker (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I hope he has made an honest living doing what he loves, but he simply has not earned significant and reliable coverage about his career. He has gotten some invitations to make guest appearances in other people's albums but has not progressed beyond basic listings in the credits. I cannot find reliable pro reviews for any of his albums; where the article says that the albums received "Press coverage" in various magazines, those were probably just release announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we've seen this sort of page before: interviews add to citations, but can't be used to assess significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:56, 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 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sellvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourcing entirely consists of press releases. Brandon (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and California. Brandon (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete: though at first glance it looks like it has some semblance of WP:SIGCOV, it turns out all articles that would count towards notability have been written by a marketing agency.

themoon@talk:~$ 14:39, 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. Deletion would not be the solution for uncited information being added, at most I would suggest requesting it be put under page protection if the situation gets bad enough, (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Movement for Quality Government in Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I hate to nominate this for deletion as it is undoubtedly a notable group, but this page seems to be getting more and more uncited information added to it. I propose a the mainspace article for this to be deleted (WP:TNT) with the current page draftified. Thoughts? GnocchiFan (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to make it clear – there are reliable sources which discuss this group in depth. I think some of the sources used in the Hebrew Wikipedia could also be used here too. But as I say, the whole article is currently unsourced and would benefit from draftifying at this stage. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've reverted the article to the version immediately prior to when Resignation793 started replacing cited information with uncited info, and also their undiscussed move of the article to draftspace. --Finngall ^talk 19:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have appeared in sandbox while I was/am in the process of writing it. I am quite new to Wikipedia and forgot about that option. I am trying to move the article to my sandbox now, but so far haven't succeeded. Resignation793 (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly notable organisation regularly mentioned and cited in the press (both for criticism of politicians and its awards); AfD is not cleanup; the article seems to have been stripped back to some referenced basics and shouldn't be an issue to have in mainspace. I have expanded it a little more and added numerous references. Number 57 20:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Number 57. Subject is notable and article is by no means "irreparable," as required for WP:TNT. Eelipe (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are a lot of literature that satisfies the GNG. If we are worried about vandalism, locking the page is a viable option. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject easily passes NORG. The nominator doesn't claim otherwise yet wants to delete by TNT, which isn't justified for this article. gidonb (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gianmarco Tocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notable media sources unavailable, article indicates that it's notable for a record Twitch viewers (which doesn't seem to be enough to demonstrate notability). WP:NBIO fails. Bexaendos (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Italy. Bexaendos (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  He’s not merely a Twitch streamer, but also a well-regarded public figure throughout the Italian-speaking world, having set world records on Twitch. Additionally, he serves as the president of one of the teams in Gerard Piqué’s Kings League. Slancio2 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable. λ NegativeMP1 16:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Gianmarco_Tocco is protected; if it wasn't notable there, it probably isn't here, delete. IgelRM (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Government of Tamil Nadu. as a viable ATD as consensus is against a standalone Star Mississippi 03:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V. Irai Anbu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional article about a chief secretary in a state government. Not important enough for an article. 🄻🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. 🄻🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  keep This person is obviously notable. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a promotional article. He has been a popular figure in Tamilnadu among youngsters, as a motivational speaker and also has been a key bureaucrat in Tamilnadu for years so nothing wrong in having a page for him. Maybe we can reduce the contents in the page but not a promotional page for sure. Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page has been getting more than thousand views per month which shows people look this article to know more about him. So we need a reliable source for people who want to know about him Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a valid reason for keeping the article. Badbluebus (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable, but the article is promotional and needs cleanup. - The9Man ^Talk 07:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on the list at Chief secretary (India), most of them do not have an article. Why is this one different? 🄻🄰 11:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't arrange notability by subtraction. If you are concerned you are welcome to add articles for these people. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adeline2018 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)— Duplicate !vote: Adeline2018 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment - when the work has been done to fix the issues identified, then we can consider WP:HEY. As is my usual practice at AfD, I won't !vote until the rescue is done. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: I've gone ahead and removed most of the article as promotional and unsalvageable. There's enough material in Google News that the subject seems to me to pass WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I reviewed the coverage in Google, most of it seems to be only mentioning him in the context of being chief secretary and the rest seem to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What are you seeing? 🄻🄰 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon a closer look at the news sources I think you're right. I don't like the idea of disregarding a large country's news media, but it does seem like most of the articles that cover the subject in any detail are either puff pieces or summaries of press releases. I'll strike my vote and switch to delete. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as editors arguing for a Keep are not basing their statements on policy or sourcing. Few people are "obviously notable" and this one isn't or the article wouldn't be nominated for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems to be an author now, [12], although that's more of an interview. This [13], Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the cruft has been removed, but I still don't see significant coverage after I asked for it to be place in the article. I'm persuaded by the deletes. Bearian (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is tricky. This individual was formerly the highest-ranking executive official of a province more populous than any European nation. He comfortably meets the spirit of the statewide office criterion in NPOL, in my view. That said, all I can find is announcements of positions he has held, and promotional fluff like this. To write a biography we need biographical material that can be reliably sourced, even if we exempt this from GNG, as I think we can. If all we can say about him is that he held the position of Chief Secretary, this should be an entry in List of Chief Secretaries of Tamil Nadu...except that doesn't exist. As such I come down as a weak keep, preferring a PERMASTUB to complete deletion, but if someone were to create such a list I would prefer a list entry over a one-sentence article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't the spirit of the statewide office criterion apply to the chief minister or governor of an Indian state rather than a secretary? There is a list on the chief secretary article and out of 28 states, only three have articles. 🄻🄰 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not know much about Indian politics but are the secretaries members of the state cabinet? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've already !voted above, but how would people feel about a redirect to Government of Tamil Nadu until more source coverage is available? --Richard Yin (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to give time for consideration of the redirect proposed in the last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Government of Tamil Nadu or Delete. This had my head ringing and after careful analysis of the page and everyone's input, either one of these option qualifies (imo). Opposed to keep. RangersRus (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As Liz has stated, the people who have voted for keep have not referred to any policy or guideline and instead on personal opinion (which is fine when paired with policies).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@All Tomorrows No Yesterdays, the !vote by Vanamonde invoke the NPOL which is a policy and not their opinion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 22:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Stafford Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NPOL, exclusively known for minor political scandals, we have no article on the event to redirect to. He is a WP:BLP so there are extra problems in this article consisting of criminal allegations for which he was never convicted - and there is nothing else, and the allegation sourcing isn't even strong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see what the keep !voters in the last AfD saw - this seems like a negative WP:BLP article about a relatively unknown person, albeit one who was in a position of power. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are sources spanning 9 years, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There was an exception to that exception: when Jimmy Wales would get involved to protect marginally notable office holders. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All the mentions prior to the 1E are extremely brief or passing, so it is still a BLP1E case. And again, this is a BLP based entirely on unproven negative allegations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Even then he doesn't really pass GNG - he's an unelected local politician. I don't agree with the source analysis of the previous AfD, either - they aren't really significant coverage of him but just discuss his role in local proceedings. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Bearian's position on this AfD. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not my forte as of now so I will relist instead of commenting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning delete I'm having a hard time seeing how there is anything left of this guy's article once you scrub it of "the only reason anyone cares about him is that his opponents claim he has done all this supposed law-breaking which haven't been proven in court." Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Being a delegate to any level convention is usually just being selected from local groups. The main theme in articles about Jones seem to be about his raising money for political action committees. And therefore involved in re-drawing districts. I'm not convinced he needs a stand-alone article. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 13:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Gibson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. There is no secondary source coverage of this individual. Cites his own self published works, sites, social media as a source. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Australia. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His book D might possibly be notable - there's a review in the Sydney Morning Herald [14] and one in Aurealis (that's referenced in the article). According to Austlit, there's also an article or review in The Australian: 'First-Time Author on a Fast Track to Fame' - though that may be one of his "media appearances", rather than a review. But there does not seem to be coverage about him, and with only one published book, he doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It has almost passed the 7 day threshold without gathering that much discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't require that an author have multiple published works, so I think he could strictly speaking scrape past NAUTHOR on the basis of his book D getting multiple reviews. But the book is only very marginally notable and he really has no notability outside of that. A couple of his short stories got minor awards, but none got any reviews as far as I can tell. So I lean delete as, even though the book was the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, I don't think it really qualifies as a significant or well-known work. MCE89 (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not weighing into this discussion on whether the article should be deleted or not, however I've previously seen editors in other discussion make the argument that having multiple reviews of an author's books is an automatic WP:NAUTHOR pass. After recently re-reading the guideline I believe that takes part of a criterion out of context.

  Criterion 3 reads in full: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep apologies if I wasn't clear, that's exactly what I was trying to say. He meets the criteria following "In addition..." based on having multiple reviews of his book, but I don't think his book qualifies as a significant or well-known work. So he meets the more objective supplementary requirement described in the second sentence of WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think he meets the more subjective requirement in the first sentence of having created a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. MCE89 (talk) 02:35, 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 Sign Language (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 15:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Language (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Bad WP:INCDAB, but renaming it to Sign Language (disambiguation) would leave a dab page with two entries that are barely list-mentioned on the target articles, i.e. they don't really seem to pass MOS:DABMENTION. Should this dab page even exist? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Upon further research, "Sign Language" is also the name of a 2009 studio album by Blueprint (rapper), and a 2016 song by Vistas (band). Additionally, there's this band called "Sign Language" with one of their albums passing WP:MUSICRS but no article yet. Would support renaming DAB to Sign Language (disambiguation) Zinderboff (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move/Rename to Sign Language (disambiguation), and expand to include these two songs plus the other stuff found by the previous commenter, plus any other pop culture items that may be relevant. I agree with the nominator's reasoning on why this page does not qualify for WP in its current state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Sign Language (disambiguation), and expand with items mentioned above and "See also" to include "in title" and a link to List of sign languages, and add hatnote at Sign language to point to dab. PamD 10:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to newly-created Sign Language (disambiguation), and amend hatnote at Sign language accordingly. (Per WP:SOFIXIT and while procrastinating RL stuff I really ought to be doing) PamD 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And I've amended the hatnote.

  The opening line of the dab page is a slight problem: I nicked the first sentence of the target article, to be sure to be correct, but it's pretty verbose. I know there are sensitivities in this area so wouldn't want to upset anyone. PamD 16:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to newly-created Sign Language (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Decision Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability. Article is based around preprints and blog posts - the RSes are not actually about FDT. A call for RSes on the talk page produced nothing. The article needs RS coverage specifically about the topic - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Logic, Philosophy, and Mathematics. David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another example of the fact that little blue clicky linky numbers do not an article make. We can't base an article entirely on preprints and blog posts. (LessWrong is a group blog without editorial review, Medium is a blogging platform, etc.) A paper from 2007 can't contribute to the wiki-notability of an idea introduced 10 years later. A paper from 1979 is likewise background at best. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that is currently reference #3 makes no mention of FDT, Yudkowsky, or Soares. The 2017 preprint is, well, a preprint on the arXiv, i.e., a self-published source that is primary and the opposite of independent. There are very, very few cases when we can use unrefereed arXiv preprints as sources for anything. For example, we could probably get away with citing John Baez's This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics [15] as a convenience link for a well-known, standard calculation regarding an established topic, so that readers would have an option that is easier and cheaper to get than a doorstopper textbook. But we couldn't take a topic that Baez invented on his blog and write a whole article about it; the fact that he has written other things that establish his subject-matter expert status would be insufficient justification. Searching for sources that are non-primary, reliably published, and providing significant coverage turns up nothing. The best that the literature offers is passing mentions: In response, various other one-boxing theories have been developed (see, e.g. Gauthier 1989; Spohn 2012; Poellinger 2013; Levinstein and Soares 2020) [16]. The closest approach to a usable source is the 2021 monograph by Ahmed on evidential decision theory which notes that FDT has been proposed as a competitor but concludes that it is not a fully baked theory yet: How best to spell this out is not yet clear; there is currently lack of clarity surrounding the counterfactuals at the heart of FDT. (The fact that the Functional Decision Theory article right now doesn't make clear that the best available source says that FDT has yet to be developed in a mathematically rigorous way makes this article a violation of NPOV.) Perhaps those brief remarks could be scraped together to justify a few lines in another article, to which this could be made a redirect. That would probably involve improving the decision theory article, which currently doesn't explain either causal or evidential approaches (leaving them to languish in the "See also"). Perhaps an "Other" subsection could be crafted that summarizes the various proposals and counter-proposals in this area. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I've taken the comment above and deleted the deprecated sources. Much of the article is seen to be without reliable sources. This shows that the article is (and was) poorly cited. The question before us is, however, whether FDT is notable, through the existence of sources in the world (not in the article). A search indicates that the term certainly exists within academia. However, many of the sources are arxiv.org preprints or ResearchGate or own-university self-publications, which do not confer notability. There are some reputable sources which at least mention FDT. What I'm not sure of is the existence of multiple, reliable sources that substantially discuss FDT. If you know of such sources, feel free to list them below and I'll change my !vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arlyson Lanoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All sources are unreliable or don't demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 14:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't meet GNG . Monhiroe (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Ambalavelil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The majority of the sources are merely passing mentions, quotes from the subject, or PR content. There is no significant coverage from multiple independent sources. The Mangalore Today article, which appears to provide substantial coverage, is a promotional piece focused solely on promoting the subject. No other sources were found that offer significant coverage. This article fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. GrabUp - Talk 13:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United Arab Emirates, and India. GrabUp - Talk 13:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Dear Fellow Editors, Pls note under the Advocates Act, 1961, and Rule 36 of the Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette set by the Bar Council of India (BCI), Indian lawyers are explicitly prohibited from directly or indirectly advertising themselves. if they do that..... they will face dispensary action because of that. They cannot use bold claims, testimonials, or comparisons to promote their practice. since Sunil is an Indian lawyer i don't agree that that his articles are paid ones since he is not legally allowed to promote himself directly or indirectly. I am sure that this article Mangalore Today was written maybe for recognition and are independent from the subject and are not paid due to the laws set for Indian lawyers by BCI. He does have 2 other significant reliable source coverages as well (Mangalore today is not the only significant coverage) - A news article written in Outlook India and Page 10 of Calameo is also there as well. all the sources were written by the writers of their respective news publication house, there is no mentioning about any disclaimer or PR (which is also illegal for an Indian lawyer to do it according to India's Law). maybe it is just the way how those writers wrote those articles that does not mean that they were paid to do it from sunil other references where there is good amount of coverage include is this - [17] [18] [19]

Other than that, to support other aspect of his notability Sunil has won notable awards as well like the best Indian lawyer award in Dubai by the Vokkaligara Sangha, the golden visa award by UAE government and Inspiring Legal Falcon Award’ at Lex Falcon Global Awards in 2023. so i would suggest to consider that as well.Theon Neth (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no WP:SIGCOV, also the golden visa isn't an award or hard to get, I have it and I don't get a page. jolielover♥talk 13:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable lawyer covered by paid media only WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Gheus (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete– It still fails WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The references cited in the current article are unreliable, see (WP:RS), especially for a biography of a living person. They cannot be considered credible sources, also fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no WP:SIGCOV and article reads as promotional. jolielover♥talk 13:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Failed to find WP:SIGCOV in the cited sources. Taabii (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Talbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NBIO and is an example of WP:NOTNEWS. Do not see any significant coverage apart from one viral news event. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Entertainment, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nominator. No significant coverage on the subject. News articles are basically in passing mention. Jamiebuba (talk) 15:27, 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. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Sakazaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am sorry to the author for working on this article so hard, but unfortunately, it has zero WP:SIGCOV. I tried to do WP:BEFORE, but found nothing. I believe that Den of Geek is a bit good for content, but it isn't enough. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:56, 28 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, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Somebody added two sources to the talk page but I'm not sure if they work.Tintor2 (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.sbgames.org/sbgames2010/proceedings/culture/full/full5.pdf
• https://repositorio.ufc.br/handle/riufc/26413

Since I didn't understand the Portuguese sources that welll, I found some articles primarily focused around her in KOF and added them to reception.Tintor2 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused, is the Den of Geek coverage the 108 character ranking? The fact that scholarly work on the topic exists somewhere does not give notability. One of the article's sources is even a wiki, Kimiuti98. Merge/redirect. IgelRM (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Kazama16, I managed to provide another scholar analysis of the character.Tintor2 (talk) 22:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There's several sources besides the Den of Geek ones discussing her importance, even before the recent additions, none of which the nominator addresses. It's a big improvement from the article that was merged many months back. To say it has "zero SIGCOV" is misguided, at best. MoonJet (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I will give Tintor2 the benefit of doubt that there are more sources discussing Yuri Sakazaki a bit more in-depth out there (i.e. talks of about she feels to play in every game she had made an appearance) and given the work he has done with Ryo Sakazaki, this has potential to remain as a stand-alone article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I only say weak because the sourcing definitely needs cleaning in reception, but there are some rather strong bits of commentary in there also.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's definitely on the line, but I think it's clearly passed GNG, looking at the sources. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Was able to find a couple of sources on Google Scholar and on Archive.org. This topic does not have a bunch of material but material does exist. Dr vulpes (Talk) 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate System in Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is brief, unsourced and lacks any significant online coverage. I have requested some development from the author but if not forthcoming shortly I would recommend deletion. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already nominated the article for deletion with reasons explaining why it should be deleted. That’s a de facto recommendation for deletion. What did you mean by “shortly I would recommend for deletion”? Shoerack (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are loads of sources that could be used to improve the article. The fact that the sources are not present in the article is not a valid reason for deletion. Shoerack (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article's brevity shouldn't be a reason for deletion. While I agree that the sourcing is currently poor, if there are "loads of sources" available, as Shoerack mentioned, they should be added to the article instead of simply noting their existence. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Shoerack has no obligation to do that. Shoerack (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look before proposing and found nothing suitable. Some more research may throw something up but I have done what I feel is reasonable. I also asked the author to provide something. As I have said - if nothing is forthcoming shortly I'd recommend deletion. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've already nominated the article for deletion, which is essentially a recommendation for deletion. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 15:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Obviously the nom did not check for additional sources before nominating this article for deletion. It would useful if we keep in mind that deletion is not cleanup. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Lazy nomination. This is a topic that is significantly covered in several reliable sources making it a WP:GNG pass on that basis. It is also obvious there was no cursory search before nomination. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Following my comment above, I did do a search, and found several sources to satisfy that this topic does indeed pass WP:GNG. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 15:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Stevie Shears. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Global (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm having trouble finding anything to demonstrate that this meets WP:BAND. They only seem to have released one album and an EP, neither of which charted. They only have one notable member. Most importantly of course I can find little substantial coverage in reliable sources. Granted the genericness of the name makes it difficult, but my WP:BEFORE failed to find any newspaper coverage, or online reliable sources. Some books (e.g. [20]) include passing mentions, such as a list of other acts Shears participated in. The only semi substantial coverage was a paragraph in The New Trouser Press record guide. But with only on WP:SIGCOV source I can't see how this passes WP:NBAND/WP:GNG Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a 1983 album review in Music Week here. More needed in my opinion. ResonantDis_tortion 22:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as an WP:ATD to target Stevie Shears. Faith Global is already mentioned at the target and the above citations, little as they are, have now been added. ResonantDis_tortion 18:31, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cinemas in Metro Manila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a business directory. Only one cinema has an article and the rest of the entries listed are almost entirely chains with cinemas attached to shopping malls. A whole lot of indiscriminate accompanying stats and features. Lack of secondary sources also means it fails WP:NLIST Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Lists, and Film. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as a WP:TNT delete. I'll change my vote to keep if someone change it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Can be improved (and should). Covered as a set in Dalton, David, and Keeling, Stephen. The Rough Guide to the Philippines, Rough Guides Limited, 2011, .p. 102, for example. Well-structured, offers context. The topic meets NLIST imv. A decent SPLIT from both pages about Philippine cinema and Manila. The historical aspect of the topic (as a set; growing number of venues, for example, relatively high (and at a relatively early period) number of cinema theatres in the Philippines but with, precisely, a concentration of the country's screens in Manila, etc.) is covered in Early Cinema in Asia [Indiana University Press, 2017, passim] -Mushy Yank. 08:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the sources identified above by Mushy Yank that contribute to a pass of WP:NLIST in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The citation mentioned by MushyYank is a travel guide, there are multiple editions over the years but they aren't that much different to each other. One I managed to find has a brief paragraph on Cinemas in Manila. It makes passing mention of three unique cinemas, (none of which are mentioned in the article) and doesn't appear to offer anything substantial to referencing the many other cinema franchises annexed to shopping malls. Possibly the editor could attribute some of this to Cinema in the Philippines but that source offers nothing that can be used in this list article (which reads like a directory) towards WP:NLIST. This is almost an identical discussion to list of cinemas in Malaysia. Ajf773 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, one is a travel guide, obviously, as are all Rough Guides books, and it dedicates part of a p. to cinema venues in Manila as a set (but it can be used for individual venues, if you wish). The other reference I mentioned, and that you possibly overlooked, is Early Cinema in Asia a book where the subject is covered significantly as as a set in multiple pages.Deocampo, Nick. Cine: Spanish Influences on Early Cinema in the Philippines, Anvil Publishing, Incorporated, 2017 has coverage about the early times (and cinema theaters of the time as a set) too and by the same author, Film: American Influences on Philippine Cinema also covers cinema theaters a a set in Manila (it can be considered the second part of the former). P. 1255 of Film Year Book (1938) has one paragraph on the the topic a a set (at that time). More importantly for a more modern list, I see, also signficant coverage of the topic as a set in Philippine Cinema and the Cultural Economy of Distribution - p. 110 & sq, for example. Also Abinales's Modern Philippines - page 325 can help improve the lead section.

  Feel free to use those and clean up the page if you think some entries are an issue.

  Not convinced the discussion you mentioned (and that you had initiated, evidently) had a fair outcome, but that's just me (see its TP, where, precisely I mentioned that issue to @Explicit). Nor that, there too, you read the reference I mentioned. And, again, the notability of some individual entries is not what should be established here. The notability of the general topic, as a set, is. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 10:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This simply isn't an appropriate list article and is heavy with WP:OR. Nate • (chatter) 14:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTGUIDE, etc. A travel guide listing a few cinemas of interest isn't enough to justify an article about every cinema in Manila, any more than it would be to create a "List of restaurants in Manila" page. The other sources mentioned seem to be peripheral coverage of the topic at best. Astaire (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The other sources mentioned seem to be peripheral coverage of the topic at best, uh, no, they address the topic as a set, directly and significantly. And the topic is not "every cinema in Manila" but the list of the members of the group [cinemas in Manila] (that can be sourced) and the said sources clearly show that the topic as a set is encyclopaedic; allowing to address any WP:OR that can be found currently on the page, and showing that neither WP:NOTDIR nor WP:NOTGUIDE, [etc], is an issue here. Aside question: Did Delete !voters and nominator perform a search of sources themselves? -Mushy Yank. 12:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR.Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We generally avoid lists of non-notable, generic local businesses like movie theaters. There's a million of them around the world, and it reads as a directory to name individual cinemas with their screens and projector types. This is not a notable set as a whole either. Reywas92^Talk 22:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "this is not a notable set as a whole either.": sources would tend to prove the opposite, though. The rest is a matter of cleanup. -Mushy Yank. 13:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You've failed to link to or use any of these sources in the article, but I think they may justify a prose article about the history of Cinema of the Philippines with respect to theaters and film viewership in addition to filmmaking, but not a list of extant cinemas that are merely modern business developments. Reywas92^Talk 00:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. One way or the other, there's consensus from this discussion to keep this article. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless: The Battle of Midway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a 2019 film was previously deleted at AfD, then later re-created with more sources, but the sources still don't establish notability per WP:NFILM. All of the works in the Bibliography section are about real-life aircraft and all of them were published 18 years or more before this film came out, meaning that they could not have any content about the film. Five of the 14 footnotes are to IMDb, which is not considered a reliable source (see Wikipedia:IMDB). Three of the other footnotes -- Naval History and Heritage Command, Hall of Valor Project, and a book by Barrett Tillman -- pertain to the real-life events this film was based on, not to the film itself. UCM.ONE is the website of the film's distributor in the German-speaking world. Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source (see Wikipedia:ROTTENTOMATOES), but it's being used to cite the fact that the film has been reviewed by no critics they keep track of. The review from "That Moment In" appears to have been taken down from the website which is not a major review site anyway. The purported review from "Flickering Myth" is not a proper review; it's tagged as "News" by Flickering Myth, not as "Reviews". That leaves only two sources I haven't dismissed yet: a page from The Numbers with estimated DVD sales and a review on a blog about naval air history. I don't think this is enough to pass WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD had identified a review by David Duprey at That MomentIn apparently? Were you able to check it? What about a merge into the article about the battle? (2-3 sentences in a bottom section; the film is listed in the See also section, the film having a rather notable cast)? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 17:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the review by David Duprey is still mentioned in the article. I found it archived here. However, That Moment In has taken the review down -- see this search which finds nothing -- and is not a particularly significant website anyway to my knowledge. The more prominent films Midway (1976 film) and Midway (2019 film), both of which have much more notable casts and actually received theatrical releases, aren't discussed in the Battle of Midway article, just listed in the "See also" section, so I don't believe that this film should be discussed there either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Weak Keep, then, two acceptable reviews (Duprey and Matt Willis, who might be considered an expert in naval history) + mildly notable cast, released, verifiable. If an ATD is found, not opposed to Redirect. -Mushy Yank. 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think I found a review or two - honestly, this is a good example of why it's so important to represent sources accurately and not stuff an article full of puffery. That can do more to damage the chances of an article surviving than anything. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll also note that misrepresenting the Flickering Myth source also puts the other sources into question, so another reason to be cautious. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at the Duprey review - whomever wrote the reception section greatly misrepresented what was written. He didn't say it was bad, but the guy didn't really praise much about the movie either, as he found it generally forgettable. Looks like the other source I thought I had was just a trailer post. I'll keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or redirect. This really, really pushes the boundaries of what is considered to pass NFILM. The reviews are OK, but not the strongest, and the only other sources is an article about the movie releasing (and a borderline WP:TRIVIAL source at that), a database page of home video sales, and a page that looks to be a general database type listing of the film. I do have to restate my earlier bit about the puffery - while the sourcing (that's actually about the film) is very weak, it would likely have not been as heavily scrutinized if it wasn't filled with some mild puffery. On a side note, I did find this Screen Rant source that lists it as one of the top 10 mockbusters per IMDb, but it doesn't give any info on how they compiled the list so I'm a bit reluctant to include it in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per the two reviews included in the reception section of the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No good reason to delete. Meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I found two other reviews, but I don't know whether the sources would be considered reliable: "REVIEW: Roland Emmerich’s MIDWAY is about as bad as it sounds" on The Beat (that started as a blog, but has editorial staff ), and "Computer Degenerated: A Review of Midway (2019)" from The National World War II Museum, New Orleans. Neither of them are positive about the film. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are reviews for a different film, Midway (2019 film), which came out the same year as the film under discussion, Dauntless: The Battle of Midway. Those reviews don't even mention Dauntless: The Battle of Midway even as a point of comparison. The notability of Midway has not been questioned, as that film received a wide theatrical release. By contrast, Dauntless: The Battle of Midway went straight to video. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is based on a true story and is a dimension of the battle of Midway not usually covered. I'm almost 72 and was a little airplane geek at 9 and still have an interest and am still learning. I've read extensively about WW2 and the war in the Pacific. I have never read about the number of SBDs lost simply because they ran out of fuel!

I posit the lack of reviews is because it wasn't an "action" movie, it was clearly low budget, with much of the scenery being a pilot floating in the ocean. The film itself is a historical footnote, as well as a vignette about the very human side of war, suffering and survival by Navy personnel.

It reminds me of the story of VT-8, flying the obsolete TBD Devastators, in the same battle of Midway. Not a single plane returned, and there was only a single aviator from the squadron, Ensign Gay, who survived and watched the battle while floating in the ocean, also without a raft. Very similar to the crew of this Dauntless.

The film "Midway (2019)" got more reviews because they were bigger budget action films, so of course they wouldn't mention this film "Dauntless: The Battle of Midway", a film with a script that wouldn't appeal to a major star. It's likely the film makers didn't have the budget for one anyway. I still think and feel it is worthy of keeping for showing the human side and the feelings of the fleet officers about their losses. I haven't read an IMDb yet that was worth much, so don't consider them much of a resource.

I therefor disagree with and protest the deletion of this film, from the source I DO use, when looking for information! Norton Margarita (talk) 12:41, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Adani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The non-notable businessman does not become notable simply because his brother is notable (WP:GNG). In the last AFD, the article was deleted, but it was later recreated. You can check the old AFD as well. (https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vinod_Adani_ Baqi:) (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Arab Emirates, Gujarat, and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nomination, Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited, wp:NINI . Zuck28 (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep easily meets WP:GNG. He has been investigated and covered in-depth by all major international publications: Bloomberg ([21], [22]), Financial Times ([23], [24]), Forbes ([25]), Sydney Morning Herald ([26]), and Wall Street Journal ([27]). Then, there is in-depth coverage in Indian publications: Scroll.in ([28]), paywalled Morning Context ([29]), and much more. It is pointless to nominate it again when the consensus was so clear in the last AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinod Adani (2nd nomination). Anyways, I have expanded the article. Gheus (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found various articles that satisfy WP:SIGCOV. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Please See: WP:WSJ, WP:FORBES, BLOOMBERG. Easily Passes WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw: I’m quite pleased with the improvements made by User:Gheus (as per WP:HEYMAN) to the article. Therefore, I am withdrawing this nomination. Additionally, I was unaware that this article was created by an admin, and I firmly believe that an admin would not create a non-notable article. Thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEYMAN.Now meets WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:HEYMAN, I'm also much impressed by the improvements done by User:Gheus. Taabii (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The subject is not relevant whatsoever. The only relevance the subject has is that his name appeared in Hindenburg Research in connection with business fraud.-25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 11:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 14:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Serbezova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Still fails SPORTSCRIT. Courtesy ping Geschichte JayCubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. JayCubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What Bulgarian newspaper archives did you look in for this offline-era Olympic medalist and world silver medalist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeanieFan11, unfortunately, if those papers can't be found, then SPORTSCRIT is not met. JayCubby 02:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So you haven't looked at any? BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BF11, cur ego? If you have access to Bulgarian newspapers, please share the results of your search. I wouldn't AfD this if I'd found evidence of noability.

  
  

  Yes, I haven't looked at any.

  
  

  I live in a different continent.

  
  JayCubby 02:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Its ridiculous to say you know this topic's non-notable when you haven't done any search whatsoever in relevant sources... BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  BF11, once again, have you any sources?

  On your point, if she's notable, odds are there will be lasting, digital, coverage. JayCubby 03:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't looked for sources yet. I wholeheartedly disagree with you though on your statement that the only people who are notable are those who have online, modern internet coverage. A very large number of those who are notable do not have coverage on the modern internet, particularly most people in human history from prior to the 2000s. I've written well over 100 good articles and probably the majority of them had no coverage available through a simple Google search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to look for sources for this article, but I'd also like to disagree with notability being based on lasting digital coverage. Obviously, super duper notable stuff has lasting digital coverage but there is a lot of stuff that got coverage back in the day that is hard to come by nowadays. With a lot of the articles I write, most of the SIGCOV comes from Newspapers.com. Even digital stuff isn't foolproof, if one was to go look at a well-developed article's history from like 2014, they would find a great many dead links (and the Wayback Machine misses a lot of stuff) Digital-only newspapers are going to be a problem in the future also because without physical backup, I worry some of the digital coverage will be lost forever. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the best I could find was 1 line mentions in google books. Unless someone finds coverage in Bulgarian, she fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]