Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 29

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. Star Mississippi 01:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Money Without Me (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)

Hello. I previously tried to nominate this article for deletion because the sources included were not absolutely verifiable. I failed because I didn't understand Wikipedia's many rules on deletion. Now that I actually understand the process, I'd like to try again. As said before, this article is very weak on verifiable sources. The only sources are hip-hop and music blogs jumping onto the track to generate content for their site. It's clear that the release wasn't intentional, as this was a track leaked years ago that was eventually taken down from his YouTube channel. This happens a lot for artists under UMG. For example, Kanye West has had his YouTube channel hacked multiple times, and each time hackers upload previously leaked songs to make them seem like new releases. The articles themselves are very short and a lot of them peddle rumors around a GNX Deluxe Edition, and the only source for the latter is Lefty Gunplay claiming that a deluxe version exists. He is the only person known to have said this and no one else to my knowledge has confirmed this. It's simply a leaked track that got an article because it was made in a hurry. I yield my time. Thank you for understanding. 35.20.154.84 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 23:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting what I posted on the article's talk page, as I saw that first.

The existence of Wikipedia:UNRELEASED under Wikipedia:Notability (music) means that there is absolutely a scenario in which an unreleased or leaked track can have a Wikipedia page. Therefore, the points mentioned about the release being unintentional or possibly resulting from a hack are not relevant. I agree that not all leaks should have Wikipedia pages, but that's only because people generally don't write about them, and therefore they aren't inherently notable per guidelines. You don't see many articles about Kanye West leaks, for instance. That brings me to my next point.

The article meets Wikipedia:UNRELEASED. The deletion justification cherry-picks the article's weakest sources; however, there are still reliable sources from Pitchfork, FLOOD, and Hypebeast which are significant, non-trivial, and independent. They discuss both the song substantively unto itself while discussing the nature in which it was mysteriously released. A previous edit summary from this editor even acknowledges this. The editor now says that these sources are short, but there's no guideline that I know of which places any value on this, so I have no reason to acknowledge the point. Ultimately, even if you remove all of the low-quality sources, you would still get an article founded on decently qualifiable sources that meet notability. Therefore, the points mentioned on sourcing are good reasons to remove sources for quality assurance but not to delete the article as a whole; if the editor wants to remove those sources on these grounds, then they are free to do so.

At best, the deletion justification provided thus far is a good list of reasons on why this article isn't "good" in a very subjective sense, and I accept that; however, it isn't a good angle on notability, nor does it refer to any guidelines, making it less of a deletion justification and more so just one person's opinion on the article. I look forward to reading a more technical, policy-based deletion justification from any other editors who feel that the article shouldn't exist. If the article is convincingly proven to have fallen short of a Wikipedia guideline, then it should be deleted. Phibeatrice (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG -- the sources already in the article are evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:UNRELEASED. Locust member (talk) 15:39, 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 Draftify‎. This article, in draft form, was accepted by an extended confirmed AFC reviewer so the only protection that would carry out your wishes is a full protection (admins only) and I can't see imposing that on this draft article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana: Part 1 (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)

Moved to draft space but was moved back out. This has not even finished filming, has been delayed previously, and has an anticipation release date 22 months from now. I see NOTHING notable about the production and is full of unreliable sources such as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Would recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but based on experience in the Indian film space, it would just be removed and we would wind up here anyway. CNMall41 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Really wish there was a way to lock these in draftspace until deemed appropriate; the source material isn't even mentioned so the reader has no idea this what this is based on and most of the sources are poor churnalism outside the overlong cast list (and a confusing drag of Hans Zimmer for daring to work on another Indian project?). Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a daily occurrence in the space unfortunately. And, once moved to draft an SPA will simply move it live a few months later. Short of locking all titles I am not sure what else can be done. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable independent sources that make the production of this wrapped yet still upcoming film notable, including https://www.gqindia.com/content/ramayana-part-1-this-veteran-actor-with-a-net-worth-of-rs-1600-crore-is-likely-to-join-ranbir-kapoor-and-sam-pallavis-historical-drama-thats-been-made-on-a-staggering-budget-of-rs-835-crore https://www.masala.com/bollywood-news/ramayana-release-date-officially-announced-nitesh-tiwaris-much-anticipated-film-to-release-in-2-parts-on-these-big-dates-official-cast-yet-to-be-revealed https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/bollywood/yash-to-join-nitesh-tiwaris-ramayana-in-december-2024-sunny-deols-entry-as-hanuman-in-2025-report-article-113227866 etc. Not opposed to Redirect but opposed to Deletion. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and move-lock, with the mainspace title salted, and instruction to require processing through WP:AFC to restore to mainspace. We can do that much. BD2412 T 01:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify per nom with move lock. RangersRus (talk) 19:29, 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. ^Complex/_Rational 20:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Fitness (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)

Most of the sources I could find after looking are primary sources and routine coverage from fitness websites. The refs already in the article are also mostly press releases and fitness websites. There isn't really anything that meets WP:SIGCOV. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Business. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. I don't see any proof of notability here per WP:GNG. Most sources are either primary or not independent, and there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Promotional article by WP:SPA. No WP:SIGCOV --John B123 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above and per WP:TNT. Editor with 4 edits recreated this page that is basically spam. In 2025, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not a social media platform or free web hosting service. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 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 delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 20:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengals–Chiefs rivalry (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 proposing this deletion because this is extremely likely to be a short term blip in their history. Unlike Bills-Chiefs rivalry, which had a history in the 90s, this really was only a thing from 2021-2023 and is likely already fading with the Bengals not making the playoffs the last two years. This feels eerily similar to the relationship between the Braves and Phillies, which does not have an article per multiple discussions. Maybe if they meet in the playoffs we can rediscuss, but for now the rivalry seems to mainly be disgruntled Bengals fans. 134.204.117.34 (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Sports, American football, and United States of America. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 20:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sourcing does not suggest a "rivalry", just two teams that play each other. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not a rivalry. In fact, it shows how "rivalry" is often used in American journalism to describe things that are not true "rivalries" in the Wikipedia sense... SportingFlyer T·C 20:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. I am not doubting this could be something bigger if the Bengals stay competitive. However, I've found very little significant coverage over the rivalry. It really just talks about the two teams meeting up in a game during the season or something similar. Conyo14 (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Missouri and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this isn't an established, long-term notable rivalry, it's two teams that play each other quite a bit and had interesting matches for 3 years. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The main reason this is considered a rivalry is due to the Bengals' comeback against the Chiefs in the 2021 AFC Championship Game, but otherwise, there's nothing more to it. Besides two AFC Championship meetings, very little history is shared between the two teams, which can be easily summarized in a paragraph. I don't doubt this can become a rivalry if the Bengals become competitive again but that remains WP:CRYSTAL. WikiGiancarloC2 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sourcing does not show this as an established rivalry. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. The references in the article do very little to suggest a notable rivalry exists between the Bengals and the Chiefs. Being simultaneously competitive and meeting in two AFC championship games does not establish a rivalry. Frank Anchor 17:05, 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 unstated "keep", no policy-compliant deletion rationale offered. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Future Giant Telescope (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)

Little content and no edits in years Littenberg (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: After mid 2000s there have been published at least two studies about this telescope: [1] (2016)[2] (2022). Apparently it is just a proposal and I'm not sure there is significant coverage beyond the papers about its design (probably don't count as third-party coverage). --C messier (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: lack of article updates isn't a reason to delete. There is sufficient evidence for at least minor notability. As C Messier noted, there are studies being published as recently as 2022. 2014[3], 2018[4] Praemonitus (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I turned up doi:10.1088/1674-4527/16/6/098 and doi:10.12086/oee.2022.210402 and doi:10.1093/pasj/psy043 and doi:10.1117/12.801257. Uncle G (talk) 11:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets the guideline at WP:GNG. Cremastra (talk) 00:54, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ulukent railway station (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 Turkish article does not have good enough cites to show that this station is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Cremastra (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article has been expanded and referenced. (Central Data Bank (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep while there are a number of passing mentions among the added sources I believe there's enough there to meet GNG; there's continued SIGCOV due to construction projects over several years. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Per WP:HEY. Thanks to Central Data Bank. Svartner (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Unless the article was unsourced, its state has little to do with whether we should keep it. As demonstrated there's significant coverage of it. Aintabli (talk) 16:52, 5 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!} 08:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Schäfer (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:BLP of a writer and unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for writers or politicians. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their books exist, and unelected candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates: the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the notability test for writers is the reception of third-party attention being paid to their books, such as literary awards and reviews by professional literary critics in WP:GNG-worthy real media.
But this just states that he exists, and sources its content entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about his work.
It also warrants note that even though he's German, and thus an article on the German Wikipedia would be expected to exist if he were genuinely notable enough for Wikipedia, the only interlang actually present here is in Portuguese, and cites absolutely no GNG-worthy sourcing that could be moved over here to salvage this either -- while even the Wikidata entry suggests that attempts to create articles about him in the Spanish and Romanian Wikipedias have previously been deleted on those Wikipedias for notability reasons, whereas no article about him has ever existed in the German Wikipedia at all. So even the Portuguese article exists only because the Portuguese administrators haven't caught and deleted it yet, rather than because he's got any kind of genuine claim to notability. (Does anybody here have enough Portuguese to take it to their AFD?)
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a stronger notability claim and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, and Germany. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, and WP:NAUTHOR. No coverage in WP:LIBRARY found. Jfire (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SPAM. I think I saw this film. His daughter wins the Little Miss Sunshine contest by default, his gay brother in law tries to unalive himself, and his son is color blind. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 23:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Academies (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 academy, fails WP:NORG a before shows no independent coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep = star academies is an outstanding organisation, and the entry needs to be beefed up, not deleted. It is interesting because it was once a Muslim school chain (TIGS etc) and Hamid has made it broader and secular. Lots of dimensions of interest 80.6.86.18 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have not generally found that MATs meet GNG, but in this case I think it does. Have added coverage under both the organisation's current name and its former one. Tacyarg (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge (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)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as Livemint, MoneyControl etc. Drushrush (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, these news stories are about changes in stock prices. Not sufficient enough. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Smålandsstenar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smålandsstenar Public Library (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)

Small town library that doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NGEO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:MILL, no architectural significance etc., but I'm curious to hear the creator's reasoning. It is highly preferable to expand the article on the town. Geschichte (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the town, where the mention can be elaborated on. Cremastra (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect with a selective merge. Compromise is not a dirty word. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I created the article and on second thought, I agree with @AlexandraAVX, @Bearian, @Cremastra and @Geschichte. Delete and redirect to the town. When creating the article, I intuitively felt that a public place (like a library or an emergency hospital) that is the main of its kind in a village/town/city is by default notable. On second thought, it is WP:MILL. Modular science (talk) 13:32, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Operations Management Association (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)

Flagged for notability since 2020. No references. Can only find passing mentions to the conference it hosts on Google. Orange sticker (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Management, and Europe. Orange sticker (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NORG. Cremastra (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. This is not a judgment of merits of the organization, but rather of the poor writing, formatting, and total lack of sources. Bearian (talk) 03:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found one paper that looked promising ([14]), but the journal it is published in is apparently supported by the association, so there is obviously an issue with independence there (not to mention that it's only a single source). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:10, 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. I see a consensus to Delete here.

Wikipedia does have plenty of articles on myths and legends but they can't present themselves as based in specific historical dates as, again, they are myths and legends and are not based on the historical record. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vikramaditya Empire (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 mixes history and legends and presents it as historical fact. The so-called "Vikramaditya Empire" is not recognised by reliable sources and the topic fails WP:GNG, this article is a blatant historical hoax, violating WP:HOAX. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Asia, and India. Koshuri ^(グ) 16:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination, many of the references here fail to support the claims. A.K. Warder (1992) does not establish any historical empire under Vikramaditya. The Bhavishya Purana (primary source), cited multiple times, is a later text filled with anachronisms and mythological elements, making it unreliable for historical analysis. Hiltebeitel (2009) discusses oral traditions but does not validate an empire which violates WP:V. The Savarkar (Hindustan Times, 2013) reference is a journalistic piece, not a scholarly study, and does not confirm the existence of such an empire. The article misrepresents sources, creating a misleading narrative. The infobox falsely presents a structured empire, despite no archaeological or numismatic evidence supporting such claims. It also merges different historical figures from the Gupta, Paramara, and Chalukya dynasties under a single "Vikramaditya Empire," which is entirely unverified. NXcrypto Message 16:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A mere WP:HOAX. Could have been asked for G3. – Garuda ^Talk! 19:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a fictional empire can be notable (Atlantis, Mu, and Lemuria come to mind) but they still need significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pseudohistory which is not notable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep The empire in my opinion is totally legendary and mythical. But this is to be in kept in mind, that folklore and religious kingdoms and empires with little coverage area also kept in Wikipedia. Regards,Ved Sharma (talk) (contribs) 14:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly failing WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV and largely based on unreliable sources, failing WP:V. A clear instance pseudohistorical POV pushing.Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilu Ilu (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)

Sources are only from TOI, which alone cannot establish notability. Due to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the sources appear to be promotional press releases and do not contribute to notability. Fails GNG and NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Gujarat. GrabUp - Talk 16:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: until release.... in 2 weeks.... -Mushy Yank. 22:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify– The cast and production don't seem notable. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The cast includes Firoz Irani, Nisarg Trivedi, Chetan Daiya, and Hemang Dave, who are well-known and respected figures in the Gujarati cinema. They have contributed significantly to regional cinema through various acclaimed films and performances. Palakpatels952 (talk) 09:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, ETV Bharat, has been added. Palakpatels952 (talk) 09:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or Delete. Not much to go on in sources and no significant coverage. Maybe wait till the release date to get sufficient coverage with multiple critical reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until release.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:31, 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 redirect‎ to White Rock Creek (Kansas). WP:DUPLICATE (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 17:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Rock Creek (Republican River tributary) (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)

Article is a duplicate of White Rock Creek (Kansas) Jbt89 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jbt89 (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:26, 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) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 Lite 7.0 (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)

Asking for a page delete, as it's already on the List of Samsung tablets Madeline1805 (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this rationale is not enough. The list does not contain the content here. Is there a notability issue? Esolo5002 (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list you linked has a ton of blue links, do you want all of those articles gone as well?? J. Geerink (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article you linked does not have specific information about the devices in it like the ones included in your AfD do. UndeadAnarchy|✉ 12:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 109.186.22.255 (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete. a this information is not available on other wikipedia pages 49.205.143.162 (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is okay and there is no reason why it should be deleted. cyrfaw (talk) 16:51, 5 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 procedural close‎. Wrong venue, should be at WP:RfD. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Night In (Press Gang episode) (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 created this redirect to add to Category:Bottle television episodes. The category was removed so there's no real reason for this article to exist anymore. Fuddle (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue This should go to WP:RFD, and I'm inclined to keep as it's a redirect to an episode, which is standard and categories aren't required to be in a redirect (though they're usually advised). Nate • (chatter) 15:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to College of Biblical Studies. There is consensus against a standalone article, and no objections to the proposed redirect. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Blocker (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)

Notability; Cant see anything either in the article or online to suggest he passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Christianity, Connecticut, Illinois, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It's Complicated, Read Below -- (how's that for wishy-washy! sorry closing Admin!) The entire article's pass/fail to me is based on WP:PROF#C6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." -- without this, I don't see anything in WP:PROF or WP:GNG or anything else to save the article. So we come to the (actually quite rare you'd be surprised) position of determining what "major" means about colleges etc. -- at the height of the seminary it had 1,800 students, which I think is on the KEEP side of what "major" would generally mean. But I looked at the negative side: "does the institution have 1,000 students today?" not close: 200-300. Does the institution have consisent and significant major press coverage about it? [15] Christianity Today 2022 article would be one good point for it, but I'd think that a "major" university would have at least one press article per year about it that I could defend as "significant" but except for some bit stories about the success (and failure) of their basketball teams, I can't find anything. So without setting a precedent about any College presidents of even a smidgen of greater notability, I will !vote Delete -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. C6 is reserved for major research universities; tiny Bible colleges that only offer associates and bachelor's are very far from that standard. This person is not an academic and so doesn't qualify for any other NPROF criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually think that this isn’t too far below the standard so don’t want to set a precedent for the next school that has a little more press coverage and notability. But I agree with you on the outcome. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to College of Biblical Studies, where he serves as president and is mentioned in the target article multiple times. Subject fails GNG and NPROF. Frank Anchor 23:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect. I don't think this school is up to the level of #C6. So, as for high school principals (who often lead larger institutions and also don't qualify for #C6) we need to go by WP:GNG instead, but we have no evidence of notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon tiger phoenix (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)

Seems to be a hoax --- for one, it is a dish that includes a combination of snake meat, cat meat, and chicken. For another, all sources on both the English and Chinese article lead to a 404 page; possibly bogus links created by generative AI. YAQUBROLI ^{T | C} 13:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm pretty confident that this isn't a hoax - the dish is mentioned in plenty of sources in both English and Chinese (e.g. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]). Obviously many of those aren't reliable sources or aren't SIGCOV of the dish — I'm not sure whether the dish is notable yet (will try to have a proper look soon), but I'm confident that it is real. And the links definitely couldn't have been created by generative AI given that they were added to the article in 2009. MCE89 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: As a Chinese person, I can assure you that this is a real dish commonly found in Guangdong and Guangxi (which gained prominence after being featured in the 2012 comedy film Vulgaria, see Oriental Daily News[23]. Believe it or not, there are even variations where "phoenix" is replaced with owl meat instead of chicken). MCE89 made an excellent effort in presenting sources, although I have reservations about most of them, with the exception of sources 2 and 3. Source 1 is a primary source from the Jiangmen municipal government (which is good to show that this dish is real though), source 4 comes from WP:BAIDUBAIKE, source 5 is user-generated content, and sources 6 and 7 are from blogs. So I would like to present some more Chinese RS that provide SIGCOV of this dish, including those from Ming Pao[24], Hong Kong Economic Journal[25], Yam News [zh][26], Wen Wei Po[27], HK01[28], and Sing Tao Daily[29], as well as some English sources that provided less coverage but also introduced the dish, including The Guardian[30], The New York Times[31], The Beijinger[32], and China Daily[33]. You can also find it from books, like Exploring the History and Culture of the Greater Bay Area (Chinese: 大灣區歷史文化探索), written by historian Siu Gwok-gin [zh].[34]. Along with the NBC Washington and Taipei Times sources presented by MCE89, I believe it clearly shows that the dish is not a hoax and more than enough to meet GNG. Yaqubroli, please take a look at the newly located sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, this all makes a lot of sense. Especially the associations with gang culture in Vulgaria; I know of the stereotype of Guangdong people eating everything, and I assumed this was some sort of satire of that. If I have free time I might do some (actual) research and improve the article. I think my nomination may have been a bit hasty. YAQUBROLI ^{T | C} 16:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by MCE89 and Prince of Erebor. Not a hoax. Procyon117 (talk) 17:30, 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 13:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi (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)

A mid-career academic not yet reaching WP:NPROF. Scopus H-factor of 4 is well below what one might expect in the field, suggesting little impact; most of the arguments from the 2016 AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi) still apply. Klbrain (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He still falls far short of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field. The article is also a copyvio of his self-written Psych Today profile, or maybe more likely both of them were made as copies of each other by the same author (so we also have apparent undeclared COI/AUTOBIO in the mix). Because some claims from that source are dubious (specifically the claim to be a Harvard Fellow not backed up by the list of past members of the Society of Fellows [35]) we also have a problem with circularity and reliability of sourcing on a WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Few GS citations (C 100) in a very highly field fails WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I searched for peer reviews of his academic publications but didn’t find any notable results. Most of his books appear on marketing platforms, and there don’t seem to be any independent reviews available. 50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Klbrain Where did you find his H-Index? I found another person with almost the same name but related to AI research on Google Scholar who has H-index of 2. Here it is:

• https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=reypPDkAAAAJ&hl=en

As to the publication of psychologist Sayyed Mohsen Fatemi, he has 43 publications but only 73 citations which doesn't speak in favor of his notability as an academic:

• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sayyed-Mohsen-Fatemi

I'm just curious how you found his H-index50.39.138.50 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Scopus H-factor, linked on Wikidata. Klbrain (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the statistics on ResearchGate are more comprehensive than on Scopus. However, I still believe this person doesn’t have sufficient notability for a standalone Wikipedia page.50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks pretty run of the WP:MILL to me, I don't see how it would pass WP:NPROF or WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to currently be an adjunct professor, has not have a notable career to date. Does not satisfy WP:NPROF . Qflib (talk) 18:55, 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 keep‎. A consensus is not going to emerge here to delete this. As this is not a BLP, there is no mandate to move from mainspace due a lack of identified/English sourcing. Recommend an effort is made with the relevant projects to improve this prior to a renomination. Star Mississippi 02:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Aidarous gate (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)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG, and its coverage is also questionable. Merging it into Abu Bakr al-Aydarus wouldn't be any better if it lacks notability in the first place. In any case, it doesn't need its own standalone article. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Yemen. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I know which GNG criteria does it not pass? This monument the main gate of al-Shihr and I dont see what is not notable about it. And why would it get merged to Abu Bakr al-Aydarus? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clearly notable. If it was in a western country it would obviously meet WP:GEOFEAT as a listed building. The fact it isn't is no reason to delete an article on a clearly historical structure. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I would like to disagree with Necrothesp, I don't see how this is clearly notable. I found nothing in the news, books, or scholar. Besides, the only two cited news articles don't provide enough coverage. So, I would lean toward delete. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on it exist in Arabic. You can copy the arabic name and search for it in google and then translate the page using google translate's website translator 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a lot of those sources are ones where the name appears in passing. This is true both of an Arabic-language search in Google Books and Google News - for example the story about the young man who hanged himself in the Al Akhaween Hotel in the Sidat Al-Aidrous area in Hadhramaut Governorate.^[36]-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can an historic fortification possibly not be notable by any definition of WP:COMMONSENSE? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How? That's exactly what I explained through my WP:BEFORE in my previous comment. Given that there are few to no English outlets even mentioning such sites (and, as Toddy further pointed out, only passing mentions in Arabic outlets), I don't see how the judgment of 'clearly notable' fits here. I'm still inclined toward deletion. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I cited WP:COMMONSENSE rather than dogma! In any country that had a decent heritage listing system this would be listed and meet WP:GEOFEAT. It's in a country that doesn't, but WP:SYSTEMIC applies. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but WP:SYSTEMIC is an essay, while WP:GEOFEAT is a guideline. If it's in a country that doesn't fall under WP:GEOFEAT, then there's no need for cherry-picking. That said, I'm not "anti-essay," but using one to justify a guideline seems a bit off to me. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan:. You are mistaken. I said that a lot of the Arabic-language books and news articles mentioning Al-Aidarous gate merely contain passing mentions of the building. I did not say that all of them contained just passing mentions.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Draftify The two sources cited by the article are independent significant coverage. Arabic-language searches in Google Books and Google News show very large numbers of mentions in passing, most of which are irrelevant (see above), but I would guess that if an Arabic-speaker put the work in they could pull out more stuff that would add to the article and makes its notability indisputable.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly a historic fortification that satisfies WP:GEOFEAT.WP:COMMONSENSE and Wikipedia:Systemic bias clearly come into play here. Yemen, it appears, does not have a register of historic buildings website in English (or perhaps any other language), but this 'gate' would clearly be on it. Clearly a case where Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is appropriate. Djflem (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp and Djflem (as article creator) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment according to Archnet the gateway is mentioned in the book "The Architecture of Yemen: From Yafi to Hadramut. London: Laurence King Publishing, 2007." by Salma Samar Damluji so it clearly is notable 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: No indication of notability so far. Moving to draftspace would be ideal as the sourcing clearly needs more work. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs improvement and better sources, but it does appear to pass GNG when you search the Arabic title, for instance mentions such as [37]. SportingFlyer T·C 07:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would oppose a draftify, the article isn't a bad stub, there are sources, it can be improved in mainspace. SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: Per Ratnahastin and Toddy1. Incubate in draft, this needs more attention, as English sources are scarce for this structure. That said, I agree with Toddy1 that it requires a subject or language expert to add more Arabic sources and properly prepare it for article space. Mr.Hanes Talk 11:34, 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 merge‎ to Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piosenka dla Europy 2008 (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)

Article appears to almost wholly replicate Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008; as the "Poland in ESC 2008" article covers all aspects of the country's participating in the event, I propose merging any information not included in "PdE 2008" into "Poland in ESC 2008" and deleting or redirecting the former Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Poland. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. If this event was standalone outside of the Eurovision realm (and the winner just so happened to go to Eurovision) I'd feel differently, but this article duplicates what's already or what should already be at Poland in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008. The merge target is designed to house all of this content as a complete picture of the overall participation. Grk1011 (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to The Persian Caravanserai. Contra the relister, I see clear consensus here against the standalone article as it stands, with the need to preserve encyclopedic content and the possibility of a future spinoff allowed by a merger. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caravanserais of Iran (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)

Entirely unsourced, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY, previously draftified but the author decided to move back to mainspace so nominating here instead. CoconutOctopus talk 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Iran. CoconutOctopus talk 09:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The topic in question is a valid one, but the list cannot remain as is, per the nominator's explanation. Some of these can be sourced by using the list of inclusions at the UNESCO World Heritage Site ([38]), which brings my attention to the already existing list at The Persian Caravanserai. Given that the latter article is essentially a list article of its own and is otherwise very awkward in name and scope, the ideal scenario in my view would be to merge these two together (preferably with a clearer title like List of caravanserais in Iran) and use the sourced UNESCO list as a starting point for a proper list article. R Prazeres (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested by R Prazeres. This is essentially a WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Its a good and important subject but needs being referenced and improved not completely deleted. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:21, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zinda Park (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 fails to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Its significance revolves around a single protest and lacks substantial information on the park's broader significance. On reading the article I observed some of the article lines read like promotional material, which goes against WP:NOTADVERT. Without comprehensive, independent coverage, the topic does not warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nxcrypto Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in past, the sources were not good enough but later many sources are published and they are independent from single protest. See these sources for the example,
    • ‘ডে লং টুরে’ ঘুরে আসুন জিন্দাপার্কে
    • Zinda Park: Story of a community village
    • ঘুরে আসুন সবুজের উদ্যান ‘জিন্দা পার্ক’ থেকে
    • ঘুরে আসুন সবুজের গালিচা- জিন্দা পার্ক
    • ঘুরে আসুন নারায়ণগঞ্জের ৮ মনোমুগ্ধকর স্থান

  It is possible to find more sources independent from the protest incident, but the recent google glitch made it almost impossible, I will still try to find more source. Also, the article was translated. So the WP:NOTADVERT issue we can see on the article is from translation and can be fixed. To me, the topic has necessary elements to be a standalone article. Mehedi Abedin 10:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your given sources include local news sites, many of them appear to focus on its tourism appeal rather than offering significant, in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Nxcrypto Message 11:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- There is no problem using "local news sites," especially when you are using it to refer to national newspapers like The Daily Star and Dhaka Tribune.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: agree with the nomination, this Park lacks coverage that establish its significance beyond a single protest. It more looks like ADVERT to me. Mr.Hanes Talk 09:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep enough significant coverage in WP:RS as found by Mehedi Abedin, passes WP:GNG. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The articles in national news outlets Prothom Alo and bdnews24.com are solid sources for establishing notability. I would avoid the UNB article, written by someone whose title is "SEO Asst. Editor". Search Engine Optimization smacks of marketing, as does their tone. The rest of the sources in the article or put forward by Mehedi Abedin above are acceptable. I don't see how it is relevant that many sources focus on its tourism appeal; that's the nature of the park. An article in Scientific Data calls it "an amusement park" (although natural enough that the researchers chose it as one of their three study sites for freshwater aquatic plants). What puts the topic way over the top is a four part, 22-page case study in Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, a peer reviewed academic journal about business. --Worldbruce (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahmed, Jashim Uddin; Hoque, Sabrina; Khan, Nazmul A. (December 2016). "Zinda Park: Rural Community Eco-park Complex in Bangladesh". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. 20 (4): 380–395. doi:10.1177/0972262916671469.
  • Ray, Rupamanjari Sinha (December 2016). "Zinda Park: Rural Community Eco-park Complex in Bangladesh". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. 20 (4): 396–398. doi:10.1177/0972262916671455.
  • Gaur, Vidhu (December 2016). "Zinda Park: Rural Community Eco-park Complex in Bangladesh". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. 20 (4): 399–400. doi:10.1177/0972262916671457.
  • Brahma, Mita (December 2016). "Zinda Park: Rural Community Eco-park Complex in Bangladesh". Vision. 20 (4): 401-402. doi:10.1177/0972262916671458.

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planon (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)

Business does business things. Non-notable. Fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comment! I totally get that not every business belongs on Wikipedia, but I think Planon is notable enough to warrant an entry. Why?

  Market Leader: Last week, Planon was named the #1 company in its field by Verdantix, an independent research firm (for the fourth time, just added that source to the page as well). That kind of recognition shows it’s not just another random company .

  Strategic Role: Planon’s acquisition by Schneider Electric and its partnership with SAP also proves it’s not just another business but a strategic one in the industry.

  The acquisition by SE also got decent media attention (which was not only about Planon but also highlighted its competitors like Spacewell, MRI and AppFolio, showing where it fits in the industry).

  I’ve also shared more background and sources on the Talk page beforehand if you’d like to check those out. Hope this clears things up a bit—happy to discuss further if you have other concerns! Stella2707 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stella2707: That is not how we consider notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that Stella2707 is the creator of the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep (note: I approved this article at AfC): Reference 3 and references 8-10 (in combination) should count for independent coverage, unless I completely misunderstand the quality/reliability of these sources. I agree this is a borderline case, but there is some coverage there beyond "this company announced X today", and the article isn't overly promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This shouldn't have passed AfC, at least in its current state. The sources largely look like press releases and routine coverage, neither of which can be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both the Gartner and Verdantix analyst reports are based on independent research and are widely considered credible sources. These reports are recognized as two of the most important publications for Integrated Workplace Management Systems (as noted in the IWMS Wikipedia entry). The recognition as a market leader in these reports makes it sufficiently notable and reliable for inclusion on Wikipedia in my opinion. Stella2707 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An article for this company exists on Dutch Wikipedia, see https://nl.wikipedia.orgview.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Planon.

Seems to be a lot more information there, might be worth looking if the sources there establish notability. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 03:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I still think this page should be kept, [removed double !vote] and I have also added more sources, including ones mentioned in the more detailed Dutch Wikipedia entry.

I believe that Gartner and Verdantix naming Planon as a market leader are strong, independent indicators of notability. These reports are widely respected in the industry and are even referenced as trusted benchmarks on the IWMS page. If these reports are considered reliable for establishing notability on the IWMS page, I don’t see why they wouldn’t hold the same weight here. Stella2707 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to issue multiple !votes in the same discussion. It is highly disruptive behavior that makes discussions more difficult to follow. With that being said, can you identify two sources that you have added that establish that the company meets WP: NCORP? Please keep in mind that most press releases do not establish notability under WP: ORGTRIV and that the notability guidelines on the Dutch Wikipedia are not the same as the guidelines here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought we'd start a whole new vote here - thanks for deleting.

The sources I added are the ones from Het Financieele Dagblad, Verdantix & De Gelderlander (#13, 8, 5 in the list of references). Stella2707 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FD is probably routine coverage, because it's sourced to an unnamed "editor". The Verdantix source and De Gelderlander are behind paywalls, so unless you can provide a copy of the articles or quotations that show significant coverage, this doesn't count. Remember that the onus is on you to show significant coverage, not the other way around. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an excerpt of 'De Gelderlander' article (original is in Dutch):

Pierre Guelen expanded his one-man business into a global player and receives a prestigious honor

Pierre Guelen from Wijchen was appointed Officer in the Order of Orange-Nassau on Saturday evening. This royal decoration is awarded for exceptional achievements with an international impact or significant national influence.

Job van der Meer | 26-05-24, 16:12

The company Planon, which Guelen founded as a one-man business in 1982, has grown into an enterprise with fifteen offices worldwide and approximately 1,000 employees. His first project involved writing software for the maintenance plan of Philips' Nijmegen location. Over forty years later, his software for smart and sustainable building management is now being used in 40 countries.

And here from Verdantix:

Green Quadrant: Connected Portfolio Intelligence Platforms (CPIP/IWMS) 2025

By Joy Trinquet With Claire Stephens January 2025

This report provides a detailed, fact-based comparison of the 12 most prominent connected portfolio intelligence platform (CPIP)/integrated workplace management system (IWMS) software providers in the market. Based on the proprietary Verdantix Green Quadrant methodology, our analysis comprised two-and-a-half-hour live product demonstrations with pre-set scenarios, desk research and vendor responses to a 184-point questionnaire covering eight technical, nine functional and eight market momentum categories. We also conducted interviews with 17 software users and reviewed the data from our global survey of 303 corporate real estate and facilities management executives. Verdantix analysis finds that vendors are transitioning from legacy IWMS solutions to CPIP offerings to meet customer demand for greater data integration and analytics. Among the firms analysed in this study, eight providers – Planon, IBM, Eptura, MRI Software, Tango, Johnson Controls, Spacewell-Nemetschek and Nuvolo – demonstrated leading CPIP/IWMS capabilities.

....

In the Green Quadrant analysis, Planon is the highest performer, achieving an aggregate score of 2.2/3.0 on the capabilities axis and a score of 2.4/3.0 on the momentum axis. Planon has remained in the Leaders’ Quadrant since Verdantix first ran the IWMS Green Quadrant report in 2017.

..... Stella2707 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of those quotations do anything to establish notability. As I stated above, please read WP: ORGTRIV. Routine coverage, such as the receiving of non-notable awards, and trivial mentions do not establish the notability of any subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these sources aren’t “trivial coverage,” and I also don’t think the award is non-notable — if it was, it probably wouldn’t have its own Wikipedia page, right?

I’d also argue that these articles fall under the category of WP:SUBSTANTIAL. They are independent pieces that discuss partnerships and acquisitions, highlighting their impact on the industry while also referencing competitors:

• Schneider Electric and Planon’s Extended Partnership Will Help Firms Get Better Value from IoT Data in Facilities Workflows (already added as source)

Haven't added those sources yet:

• A Win-Win Partnership as SAP and Planon Partner to Address Pain Points in Corporate and Commercial Real Estate Management
• Planon’s Acquisition of Reasult Will Expand Its Reach Across the Real Estate Market

When setting up the page, I also looked at similar pages like TopDesk, Nemetschek and MRI Software. It would be really helpful to know which of the sources on those pages are considered notable so I can try to find comparable ones for the Planon entry. Stella2707 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on every count. As I very clearly stated above, Dutch Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different notability standards. The existence of an article also doesn't imply that its subject is notable. Plenty of articles are created about non-notable topics, such as the one we're discussing right now. It is also clear that you are either unable or unwilling to read the policies that I have cited because WP: NCORP clearly states that "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as ... the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel [and] of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business." do not establish notability. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you have read these policies. You are wasting valuable volunteer time by ignoring them. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have read the policies and still none of my sources fall under hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel, nor are they standard notices, brief announcements, or routine coverage of expansions, acquisitions, or mergers. Instead, they analyze and discuss the acquisition and its industry impact - but anyways:

My goal is not to waste anyone’s time — I want to improve the entry. That’s why I’d really appreciate feedback on my earlier question: which sources on similar (English!) pages are considered notable? That way, I can focus on finding comparable ones. I’m not here to argue, just to learn and contribute constructively.

I’ll leave it here for now but would appreciate any feedback from you or others. Stella2707 (talk) 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 11:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Planon is very widely used, we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of our article, which is conveying quite simple and non-promotional information. The sourcing is about as good as you'd expect for this class of company. But from the perspective of common sense, it's quite likely that a reader who has come across planon at work might be curious as to its origins, and it's the fundamental job of an encyclopedic site such as our own to help them find out more. What conceivable benefit is there in deciding not to tell them? Elemimele (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about whether this article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. It is not a soapbox for you to ponder the philosophical meanings of deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated: that was a bit unnecessary and felt like a personal attack. To clarify: my keep is based on my belief that, by the standards of its peers, Planon is notable and sourced. I appreciate that it's sourced largely to business-like places rather than major newspapers/magazines, but that's in the nature of this sort of product/business. I do, however, feel it's appropriate to base my viewpoints on what I believe an encyclopedia should be, because the very first words at WP:5 (the five pillars of wikipedia) are "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia"; there is nothing more core than that. Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally attacking you; I'm merely pointing out that you haven't made a complete argument. We need reliable sources in order to make an article encyclopedic, and there is no carveout for your favorite companies. I suggest you try to find better sources instead of trying to convince me that WP: GNG says something it doesn't. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the standards of its peers is not supported by our WP:NORG policy. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sourcing is PR items, which is about what I find. This seems promo. Articles about them joining with other companies don't meet notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is not great but is far from TNT. As pointed out above, the subject passes NCORP. More references are available on Nlwiki. gidonb (talk) 03:26, 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 no consensus‎. There is no consensus in the arguments as to whether this should be deleted or kept. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties (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 contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Lists, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, India, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not everything in that list is in Indian subcontinent. Some are from southeast asia, such as Majapahit and Srivijaya. They are among the two biggest Hindu empire outside India. The only reason that it looks insignificant because the list is very poorly written, making them easy to miss. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We have many other lists, like List of princely states of British India (by region), separately List of princely states of British India (alphabetical), List of Rajput dynasties and states, List of dynasties and rulers of Rajasthan. To avoid even more duplication, I think that continuing the current scope (sticking to the Hindu kingships would be wise). Викидим (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mehedi Abedin, we already have a similar list, that is the List of Indian monarchs (which also simultaneously acts as a list of all the dynasties, empires and kingdoms that ruled in India), so this list would be a bit redundant if it were renamed to that. AlvaKedak (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Agree, the Hinduism is of later origin, whereas in place of modern Hinduism, Brahmanism was present in ancient India. The article inaccurately cites several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, which is historically incorrect and misleading. Nxcrypto Message 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along the lines of WP:TNT due to WP:OR. I have spent a significant amount of time trying to figure out the origins of dates and locations in this list, and can testify that the format of a list is uniquely unsuitable for looking at really deep layers of Indian history. Essentially (please note that I am not an expert and not even an amateur in this area, so please take this with a grain of salt), there is no written history that pre-dates the 1st millennium AD, and no chronicles for a long time even after that, the first definite royal dates apparently are from the times of Guptas. While this is generally not a problem for a researcher, putting a verifiable date of an early Indian history into a table is usually not possible. Note the cite requests I added to all the dates of the 2nd millennium BC, predictably, no sources were added. As a practical example, let's take the first entry in the list (it actually became the first after I have removed the earlier mythical empires with completely random dates to the bottom of the list), Kuru kingdom. This list states 1900BC (note the exactness), our own article says 1200 BC. The issue in reality is so much harder than our articles portrays, there are tons of texts written trying to date this (non-mythical!) kingdom. Quoting our Kuru kingdom: The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas. But ... practically all historians agree that Vedas were written down in the 1 millennium AD and thus cannot be "contemporary" if 1200 BC date is to be believed, and also contain very little in terms of dates in general, and definitely nothing so precise for the Kuru Kingdom. As an example of a professional's assessment of Kuru, one might want to look at Michael Witzel's work, The Realm of the Kuru: Origins and Development of the First State in India. He plainly states: our approach has primarily to be a textual one; there remains little else that can tell us something about this period ... yet after some 150 years of study, the Vedic period as a whole does not seem to have a history. He continues: the first fixed date in Indian history that is usually mentioned is that of the Buddha around 500 BCE. In an earlier work Early Sanskritization. Origins and development of the Kuru state Witzel states, The evolvement of the small tribal Bharata domination into that of a much larger Kuru realm is not recorded by our texts. The Kurus suddenly appear on the scene in the post-Rigvedic texts. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this material, but it cannot be neatly packed into a table. Therefore, the only way for us to write this list is to find a modern chronological source and base the list on it. Attempts to haphazardly create our own list based on disjoint sources will miserably fail as the purest WP:OR. Until such a source is found and agreed upon, this list will only sow confusion among our readers. Once the source is found, the list will have to be written from scratch anyhow. Personally, I would propose to start with [39] (please read the one-paragraph introduction!). --Викидим (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looking at the article, though not well written, i will go for keeping it. There is always scope for improvement in this area. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this a topic that is covered in this particular way by WP:Reliable sources? We can't really keep this if it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, that so-called topic Hindu empires and dynasties in this specific form is not covered by reliable sources. Most scholarly works discuss these kingdoms in terms of regional history, political evolution, or religious influences, but not as a consolidated list with a clear focus on "Hindu" identity. This leads to a reliance on synthesis and original research, violating WP:V and WP:NOR. The article perpetuates inaccuracies by including non-Hindu dynasties and presenting speculative timelines, which distorts history. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  IN my search for sources, I have discovered few Hindu kingdom lists, but they were much shorter and quite focused on some aspect of the total set. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What's the definition for "Hindu empire / dynasties" here? Because from the list's lead and Kingship (Hinduism) I assume that it's Empire / dynasties that adopt Hinduism as it's religion. But from the way it's mentioned in this discussion multiple times, it might means something else. Am I missing something? - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Prior to my modifications of the lead, it read The following list enumerates Hindu empires and dynasties in chronological order. Pinging @Fidolex: who wrote it back in 2018. My interpretation was simple: Hindu indicated adherence to Hinduism, not some particular geography of era, so I have added a link to the (newly created) Kingship (Hinduism) in 2024. Researchers routinely use terms like "Hindu kingdoms/dynasties" to denote the monarchies that were based on Hinduism principles, similar to other state religions, so this interpretation is not my WP:OR. See, for example, [40]. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be the best way to decide this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sourced, well-structured and illustrated. A helpful timeline. Might be renamed List of Hindu monarchies (and the LS indicating "including empires/dynasties" etc) (or List of Hindu kingships). Improve and clean up by adding refs to Spellman, W. M. (2004). Monarchies 1000-2000. Reaktion Books., pp. 129-130, Lal, D. (2005). The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D.. Oxford UP, passim and a lot of other references that together prove the topic was evidently addressed as a set in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:NLIST. -Mushy Yank. 18:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reading the cited sources, as well as the those floated during this discussion, I would say that 99% of the content here is unsupported by them. Studying a few random entries: Kushan Empire, Licchavis of Nepal, and Pala Empire, I can't agree with the claim that "most of the entries are clearly correct" or the idea that complex information about 150+ empires and dynasties can be shoehorned into a verifiable table. List of Indian monarchs needs a six-column table just to lay out different views on the start and end dates of the Pala Empire! Some of the kings of the Kushan Empire and Pala Empire were Hindu, other were Buddhist or Zoroastrian, a nuance lost by trying to squeeze messy history into a pretty table. --Worldbruce (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reiterating the call for a source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear colleague: There are almost no sources listed for the items on this list. The three serious sources at the end have been added by me to justify the removal of mythical dynasties into their own table at the bottom (prior to that surgery these kingdoms were also in the main table with completely fictional dates and details, and the only two sources covered two tiny aspects, see the Old revision of List of Hindu empires and dynasties). My three sources thus do not support the information in the list itself and I am practically sure that most of the dates at the top of the table are also fictional (the ones I have marked with {{cn}} contradict our own articles about the kingdoms, not the sources - that are mostly absent in these articles, too). I do not understand what can be done to verify, for example, the 1900BC claims for the Hindu kingdom at the top of the list, as mainstream historians apparently declare that Aryan people (proto-Indians) had settled in what is now India many centuries later. For the avoidance of doubt, I am no expert on the subject. Викидим (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I would suggest keeping this article but removing the references to "Hindu". Perhaps the article can be titled "List of empires and dynasties of the Indian subcontinent". The subject matter of this article includes proto- and early history which by its very nature will not have sufficient recorded references. Nevertheless, the information contained here is useful, and most users will know to consume it with caution. I do not believe there is a deliberate attempt at creating disinformation (hoax), and I do not believe there is bias. It does lack verifiability, and can be addressed with appropriate disclaimers, which I believe the author has already put in place in the introduction. I think this is a useful enough compilation that it should be improved as much as possible, but not deleted. Rsata (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No misinformation? Really ? The creator has included Buddhist empires/dynasty in this list. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, @Rsata, the article is a complete mess. I tried to improve it by removing several non-Hindu dynasties from the list and found some nonexistent dynasties mentioned as well. But after making these changes, I realized that the article is in such poor condition that it can hardly be improved to GA status. The only viable option left is WP:BLOWITUP. NXcrypto Message 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the list has many issues given by posters above. I would suggest that this is due to being an example of the complex cross-categorization mentioned in WP:NLIST. This list is essentially trying to tie together 3 aspects, "Hindu", "empires", and "dynasties". Issues have been raised with both "Hindu" and "empires" above, so there isn't an intersection of two that really works here, and the various cleanups proposed seem to essentially create new lists with new criteria. CMD (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nomination. This article has a lot of issues, it erroneously categorizes dynasties like the Pala dynasty and the Kalabhra dynasty as Hindu despite evidence to the contrary. It either needs to be deleted immediately, or it needs to be heavily edited to fix all these issues, which could take a long time.

AlvaKedak (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : I nominated this article because its current state is beyond improvement, various editors tried to improve the article but failed. So once it get removed, a new article on the same topic can be created by anyone with reliable sources as the topic is indeed notable. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Cleanup: I know the article has a lot of issues it needs cleanup on, and any dynasty or state listed which is not provably Hindu should be removed, but the list itself is mostly factual besides those areas that need cleanup and serves the purpose of listing states following the major religion of Hinduism and plays an important role in the histories of South Asia and Southeast Asia. I would suggest we get the Wiki projects on Hinduism and India at least to assist in making the article right instead of scrapping it. J390 (talk) 19:20, 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 Procedural close‎. The previous AFD closed on 1/28 and this one was opened on 1/29. Let's not rerun the previous AFD immediately. Please wait 3-6 months before a return trip to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese (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:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. BLP with no effective sourcing. Single reference is a cast list passing mention. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (don't know if I'm allowed to contribute to this as the previous nominator, if not just ignore) Aŭstriano (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. I posted this again, because the last Afd was evidence free that resulted in a non-consensus result on a single passing mention, on a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is it really allowable to bring an article to AfD again one day after it closed? I will repeat what I said there: I believe that she meets WP:CREATIVE#3: "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". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here - I will do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time. Do you any you references that can support this WP:BLP per WP:THREE, because I have done a before and found only cast list which passing mentions. Simply stating something without offering evidence is unacceptable in 2025. Its not 2008. Per WP:BLP, its needs high-quality WP:SECONDARY coverage, not passing mentions. It must satisfy WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. If you do not evidence then it will be redirected. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to policy both in this AfD and the previous one. I read WP:CREATIVE#3 as stating that someone who has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work is notable. It is the work that must have multiple independent reviews. If you don't think that See Dad Run meets those criteria, perhaps you should take it to AfD. The result of this AfD does not depend on me, nor on you - it will depend on what the consensus of participating editors is. I have added sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mushy Yank, Reading Beans, Mlkj, and Moopaz:, who participated in the AfD that finished one day ago.RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time is a very unnecessarily hostile and inaccurate comment: Rebecca did refer to a guideline during the first AfD. Also, please bear in mind that people meeting WP:CREATIVE do NOT need to also meet WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sources have been added to address the verification issues. Anyone could have added them, including the nominator.-Mushy Yank. 13:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:THREE references per consensus. Provide 3 good secondary references and I will withdraw the nomination. But it needs to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 16:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: immediate renomination was not due. Either discuss a redirect on the talk page or go to deletion review. -Mushy Yank. 13:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Although I voted delete on the last AfD, I'm not thrilled to see this re-submitted on the very next day. The norm is WP:2MONTHS before re-listing when there is no consensus.

On another note, thank you RebeccaGreen for the ping! To respond to your comment above, if I were !voting, I'd argue that although WP:CREATIVE#3 is an additional criteria that indicates notability, it doesn't override the more important WP:BASIC policy for notability (significant coverage in multiple published secondary, reliable, independent sources). Even if we find a criteria somewhere that supports notability, we cannot write a WP:BLP without good sources to cite, otherwise we risk having verifiability & original research problems. And that's a much stronger concern! If WP:CREATIVE#3 conflicts with WP:V due to lack of reliable sources, this is a foundational issue with the five pillars, the need for reliable sources must always take precedence over the various particular criteria that each topic uses to discuss notability! Mlkj (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks for that!! Evidence free !voting is deeply uncool that leaves non-notable articles that have no place on Wikipedia. If there is sources for this BLP, they would be immediately visible on the reliable sources search as its a modern individual. No deep archive search is needed. There is nothing here and it needs to go or be redirected. And stating "Speedy Keep" as though its a heavily sourced historical article, when there is really hardly any information on the lady at all, except cast lists, is not helpful. Lastly WP:2MONTHS is an essay not policy. Its rank junk and meaningless. I would advise you not to mention again. The article has never been referenced since it was created. The article needs to stand on its own two feet as its a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep. It's too soon to relitigate this. If you believe that the previous AfD was closed improperly, then appeal that, instead. pburka (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There has been a update to the article per WP:HEYMANN standard so I will examine the 5 references when I get back. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep: if every "no consensus" close was brought back to AfD within a day, the whole system would be overwhelmed. If anyone thinks it was a bad close, there is WP:DRV. PamD 09:04, 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.