Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 2

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 7 (Tue)      January 6 (Mon)      January 5 (Sun)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Shaanxi Northwest Youth F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of notability for this amateur football club. JTtheOG (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and China. JTtheOG (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- (moderate) -- per nominator. Also, not a reason for deletion, but; article mentions that it "secured a first-place finish in the 2024 FA Cup qualifiers ranking." Yet the 2024 Chinese FA Cup does not mention the team? Odd. MWFwiki (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing Chunlei F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of independent notability for this amateur football club. JTtheOG (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and China. JTtheOG (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- (moderate) -- Even less notability than Shaanxi NW Youth FC which I also voted to delete... so, consistency, and all that.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClickUp (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)

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modernwoman2021 is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources): responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform. is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:

The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself: a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).).

For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.

The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.

The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND

Announcements of hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE.

For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.

In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Wikipedia. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet GNG/ORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are hundreds of articles I see online about ClickUp.

From San Diego Tribune, San Diego Business Journal, Silicon Angle, Times of San Diego, Fast Company, Fast Company, Ad Week, Crunchbase News, Irish Times, PR Newswire, Forbes (Third Party), Solutions Review, UC Today, and Digital News Asia to name a few.

These have quite substantial information about ClickUp and are news articles, not press releases.

But I do get that we're looking for quality, not quantity here. I will raise the UC Today article as I believe it covers the requirements needed for NCORP.

Although the sources are quite positive, which could lead to bias, I dug deeper and found this TechCrunch article, which is about the company layoffs.

And I'd like to add that ClickUp is a pretty well known company here in the US. It's comparable to Asana and I'd be really surprised if there was no Wikipedia.

As I understand Wikipedia, it's used for education, and since so many people search for ClickUp, it's only right that Wikipedia is the central point for all information about ClickUp.

Those are just my two opinions, because credibility is the issue here.

Since this is the English language Wikipedia, the US is one of the target countries in terms of location and popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiresearcher (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nabiresearcher is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this assumption has anything to do with the discussion, since I only provided sources I know to help?

Please keep the discussion only about ClickUp. Anything here shouldn't be taken personally :) Thank you! Nabiresearcher (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions on other editors, regardless of edit count or participation elsewhere. Thank you. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Plenty of references out there, meets NCORP easily. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tzameret Fuerst (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)

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Israel, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The sources on Fuerst's page are terrible, and it's unclear if she meets WP:NBIO. However, her startup Circ MedTech absolutely meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in New York Times, Haaretz, Tablet, VoA, Times of Israel, NoCamels, Reuters, among others. I'll go ahead and create Circ MedTech, and propose we redirect Fuerst to Circ MedTech. Longhornsg (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) 05:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please note and check that the start up got raft of criticism, allegedly unproven scientific benefits. It is mentioned briefly in the book "Thou Shalt Innovate" by Avi Jorisch, pp. 190-191, the book dedicated to the start up 33 words, the book discuss the greatest innovations that came out of Israel. And guess what ? Tzameret Fuerst not mentioned there, but the three founders of the company mentioned there. It is not her Start-Up, she was married to one of the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC7:50E:22C2:778:5634:1232:5476 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please provide a link to the target article so that it can be reviewed to see if it is suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The circumcision device might be notable [3], but this person is only mentioned in context of the company or the device. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from third-party sources for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, California, Colorado, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players as possible search term. GiantSnowman 09:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify - It's well sourced, it just may be Wikipedia: Too soon. RossEvans19 23:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there are enough secondary-party sources involved, from The Daily Evergreen, The Spokesman-Review, and Lewiston Morning Tribune. [5][6][7][8] Whether that's enough sigcov in combination per WP:BASIC is another story, but certainly no need for third-party sources here per GNG. There is otherwise coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, so per WP:SPORTBASIC it's likely there are enough sources for notability, even if not a guarantee. If it's a case of too soon then WP:DRAFTIFY would be a better option here. CNC (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Third-party sources are a requirement for GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. The Daily Evergreen is not independent and so does not count. The Spokesman-Review and Lewiston Morning Tribune articles are brief, routine blurbs about her signing lightly refactored (as in, would absolutely fail our close-paraphrasing rules) from the same press release, and additionally are far from the SPORTSCRIT #5 requirement, let alone the SUSTAINED SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources required by GNG. I see zero reason to draftify considering her contract ended in 2022 and there is no evidence she continues to play professionally. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies, per above I mixed up third-party with tertiary, ie party and person. Agree the student newspaper isn't independent here, and given your reasoning that the subject hasn't been playing since 2022, best to redirect instead. CNC (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players : Agree with JoelleJay that this subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources needed to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Draftifying or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per Evans Reader of Information (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm struggling to find much of any WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this tragedy. Basically all the coverage is within a day or two of the event, with the only exception I found being this. I can't find any evidence of these supposed extensive discussions of the event, but I'm no expert on Maldivian media. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Maldives. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This event doesn't seem to be covered much on the news from my research. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Ajudua (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)

One major problem is that this creation is likely a paid contribution that is undisclosed. The citations are evaluated based on this version as follows;

Citation 1 is a paid promotional puff and also a falsehood, especially when it said Ajudua’s impact is particularly evident in his work with Davido. He played a key role as a co-writer for “NA MONEY,” a track from Davido’s Timeless album that features The Cavemen and Angelique Kidjo. There is, as a matter of fact, no credit on anyone such as Bobo Ajudua if you check any of your streaming platforms for the single "Na Money" by Davido, and this alone is ridiculous and makes this whole thing iffy.

Citation 2 does is not only a paid puff but does not provide the substantial coverage we require to pass WP:GNG.

Citation 3 is not only an unreliable source, it lacks a byline and, even if it does have a byline, does not provide the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.

Citation 4 is not only a run of the mill piece, it lacks a byline and fails WP:SIGCOV.

Citation 5 from marginally reliable Vanguard does nothing but promotes and praises the subject such that only one or two useful information is passed. Take a look at the ridiculous line breaks while scrolling through the piece.

Citation 6 is just like Citation 5 above, does nothing but praises the subject ridiculously such the nothing notable is passes as an information. Over the years, he has cultivated a reputation for his thorough understanding of corporate law, intellectual property, and entertainment law. His expertise ensures that artists, creatives, and brands are not only legally protected but also strategically positioned for sustainable growth. What is the job of an entertainment lawyer? How is this anybody's business? What's notable about ensuring his clients are strategically positioned for sustainable growth?

Citation 7 is yet another paid puff about his brands that are doing nothing but their job, and in this context, lacks the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG for this subject.

People get sacked from their jobs everyday, what is notable about the subject being sacked?

What is Wikipedia's business with whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not?

Every other source I skipped are just as bad as the ones I already evaluated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Entertainment, Law, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject hasn't suddenly become notable since the last time this was discussed. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Striking my vote since the reliability of Nigerian news outlets, which have covered the subject in some depth, is subject to an ongoing discussion in which I don't have an opinion. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Most of the sources here are used to verify informations and not as a means of promotion. There are sources which you have discarded simply because they were worded in a way that you do not like and I wonder when Wikipedia started dictating the tone of sources as I am fully aware that sources are allowed to be biased if they are reliable. The mix up in the PM News articles can be corrected with a simple mail to the editor (as it is standard procedure) and not my fault that the mix up occurred. I’ll present atleast three sources plus the fact that “Hmmm” which is a single in a Grammy nominated album "11:11 (Chris Brown album)" was co-written by Ajudua. This information was definitely not available in the last discussion. Ahola .O (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia started dictating the tone of sources! since Wikipedia:Neutral point of view existed and plus this is not the place for trivia and gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP), like really, why would we care whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not.

  This is a biographies of a living person, so we need to be even more careful when it comes to writing and sourcing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:YESPOV shows that articles could be non-neutral and our responsibility as editors is to present these views as neutral as possible. When it comes to being biased, I believe articles can be biased too per WP:RSBIAS; unless I’m interpreting the policies wrong.

  The article about the father being absent is a celebrity article but I used it because it gives context into the married. Ahola .O (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are, in fact, misunderstanding and misinterpreting them. I couldn’t even comprehend what your view of NPOV and reliable sourcing is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you not understand? Every source must not follow Wikipedia’s policies as each outlets has its own style of writing. Again, I ask, are we dictating that the tone of sources even when they have bylines are no evidence that they were sponsored? I think you are the one who does not understand WP:NPOV here. Also, if there are promotionals tone that I must have mistakenly added, is deletion the avenue for it? Ahola .O (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources show that the subject is notable.:

Jonahakuso (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)— Jonahakuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. There are sources that were not available in the last discussions. This one from PM News was published in April, 2023; this from Nigerian Tribune where they called him a pioneer] was published in 2022 and contrary to Vanderwaalforces that this is just passing mentions, this has some information on him; this from TheNEWS has an in-depth coverage on his company(ies). was published in July 2023; this from The Guardian was published in November 2023; this from Daily Times was published in 2024; This from Vanguard (which has been labelled a marginal reliable) has a byline and can be used to establish some notability. I believe that these sources meet the WP:GNG because 1) they are independent of the subject 2) has indepth coverage 3) are reliable 4) has demonstrated independent coverage. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would change my mind if there are evidence and not just there words ie some citations.

Ajudua is a co-writer of a Grammy nominated album 11:11 which meets WP:NCOMPOSER #1 and #4. This information is verifiable on every music streaming platform. Ahola .O (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of these sources taken together can arguably count as in-depth coverage, but I'd also like to note here that the reliability of most Nigerian news outlets is the subject of an ongoing discussion above my pay grade. I'll strike my vote above since I don't have an opinion on the reliability of these sources.

I will point out though that the subject is not co-writer of a Grammy-nominated album, he is co-writer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album. Most of the co-writers listed in 11:11 (Chris Brown album) don't have articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I had shown above shows that the Ajudua has coverages since 2022 or thereabout and I am sure that an extensive search will definitely show more.

I am not basing the notability here with just the single track. I am showing that amongst the sources that they meet a criteria there also, atleast #1. Ahola .O (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Echoing my last !vote, nothing has changed since November when we last visited with an AFD about this person. I don't see notability based on the sources, which, as explained, are all puff or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Oaktree b above. The new sources mentioned above appear to be simply fresh paid puff pieces and interviews, and being fired by a celebrity client is at best WP:BLP1E. His involvement in notable projects has been minor: for example, as noted above he co-wrote one song on an album nominated for a Grammy. None of this quite brings it over the line for WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article and its sources fail to meet WP:BASIC in my opinion. Source 2 is an opinion, says so in the title. Source 3 does not exist. Source 5 sounds like ChatGPT; "Rather than simply promoting a product, he crafts strategic partnerships that align with the brand’s long-term goals." Source 6 seems to simply copy and paste the existing information in the WP article in question. The creator of this article seems to have some type of conflict (monetary or otherwise) as evidenced on his talk page, especially because this article has been in AfD before. All of this smells really bad to me hence my vote to delete promptly. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly not notable per WP:GNG; representing celebrities doesn't necessarily suit well or aims that he/she may be notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - according to this he was a speaker at the Nigerian Bar conference but not one of the keynotes. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither (short story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; unsourced DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this the same text that served as libretto for Morton Feldman's 1977 "anti-opera" Neither? (See also [9], [10][11].) That would probably establish mild notability (or at least notoriousness) and be grounds for a Merge instead of a Delete. – Tea2min (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Neither (opera). Yes, as Tea2min says, Neither is not a short story but rather a libretto written for Feldman's 1977 opera. Most scholarly analysis and commentary is in the context of the combined work rather than the Beckett text in isolation, so a merge is appropriate. Significant coverage includes the following:

• Laws, Catherine (1998). "Morton Feldman's Neither: A Musical Translation of Beckett's Text". In Bryden, Mary (ed.). Samuel Beckett and Music. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–86. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198184270.003.0005.
• Tubridy, Derval (2020). "Beckett, Feldman, Salcedo... Neither". In Caselli, Daniela (ed.). Beckett and Nothing: Trying to Understand Beckett. Manchester University Press. pp. 43–159.
• Laws, Catherine (2017). "Feldman – Beckett – Johns: Patterning, Memory and Subjectivity". In Heile, Björn (ed.). The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music. Taylor & Francis. pp. The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music.

Jfire (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the Opera per above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeKnob SquareNuts (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)

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the director's article. The refs only talk about the movie in passing while speaking of the director. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the BuzzFeed list article is not significant or from a reliable source, the Hollywood Reporter article is very just a few sentences long and not "in detail" per SIGCOV, and the Esquire article is more about the director and only mentions the parody three times in passing, and thus not "in detail" either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Further comment: The HTF and InsideHook articles are also like the Esquire article in that they are simply interviews with the director and only tangentially mention the video. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Di. Juwan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. E_F⁵ 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Di briefly mentioned this discussion on the Wikimedia Discord server. They quickly deleted their message upon being asked to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like all participants thus far except Darth Stabro (but including the nominator and myself) are active on that server. Toadspike [Talk] 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I !voted before they accidently mentioned it. And it hasn't done any damage, the !votes disagree with each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While I am on the server, I was not online when the message was sent. E_F⁵ 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize, it was not my intent to bring attention to the discussion or to canvas. I offhandedly mentioned it to express that I was annoyed at a page in queue for DYK being AFD'd, and when I realized that it could be interpreted badly I deleted the message. Again, I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It being in a queue for DYK is why it was nominated; see this comment on WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I lean towards delete, as I expressed at DYK – The Hollywood Reporter doesn't go into much depth, Hit the Floor and Esquire are mainly interviews, and BuzzFeed definitely doesn't count on this one. I might be convinced that The Hollywood Reporter, InsideHook, and Bubbleblabber make a very weak GNG pass, but the last two just aren't very weighty sources and if this is the best the article can be from those sources, then yeah, I'm not sure I see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: given the coverage identified; also see https://mommyish.com/porn-parody/ https://www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/top-des-parodies-x-les-plus-droles-du-cinema-4163152/ etc. A ’decent’ article is possible so that redirect is not necessary and I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deeply unimpressed by source quality and coverage. The Hollywood Reporter is the best coverage, and it's still just a brief blurb N. Bubbleblabber is clearly not RS N. Hit the Floor is a low-quality group blog with a single sentence fragment of coverage outside the interview N. Inside Hook, if it's even RS, is still a trivial one-sentence mention N. Esquire coverage is exclusively in an interview N. Instagram is worthless N. BuzzFeed is a non-RS listicle N. Mommyish is blatantly not RS, why even link it N. Cineserie is also not RS (byline is just "Hatman")—at best it's tabloid junk "edited" by people whose professional journalism credentials are unverifiable—and anyway is just barely three sentences in a listicle, very far from SIGCOV N. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed not RS, how? Bubbleblabber, not reliable, ”clearly”, why? For the rest, the sources you indicate as just a blurb, just a listicle, and so on address the subject in what are not trivial mentions, some being of lesser quality than other. As to ’why even list it”, read my comment and WP:OR and you’ll know. -Mushy Yank. 04:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • By which Mushy Yank means they have added references to sugarcookie.xxx (!), cartoonbrew.com, and the Daily Beast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Mushy Yank also says that you’re most welcome! -Mushy Yank. 12:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the record, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Cartoon Brew and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Is The Daily Beast a reliable source -Mushy Yank. 12:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That Cartoon Brew discussion doesn't look like an unambiguous endorsement of that website's reliability to me... Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lee Roy Myers. JoelleJay's breakdown of the sources looks correct. The Hollywood Reporter article is the best source right now. Everything else is primary or marginally unreliable at best, not enough to meet WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. A google search didn't reveal much. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADMASQ, obvious highly promotional article with promotional intentions of a person of questionable notability. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete poorly cited orphan article that fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete - I see only ordinary local coverage, which does not rise to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rat's Brains & Microchips (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 meet WP:NALBUM. Lacks reliable sources that give significant coverage. Skyshiftertalk 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with long left leg (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)

Probably does not pass GNG; no significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: At least please consider a redirect(at least two obvious targets) -Mushy Yank. 01:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that a "redirect" result is only feasible if a target is clearly identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhaz alphabet; Tse (Cyrillic) (technically a merge) are suitable targets. -Mushy Yank. 08:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANNO: X (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)

None of the sources appear to be reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruins–Flyers 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)

Upon a search for sources, the only sustainable one (and its partial at best) was [12]. There was a TV series called NHL Rivals which covered these two teams, but since it was published in part by the NHL and its broadcast partner, NBC, it would be a primary source. If not delete, then I would recommend a partial merge to List of NHL rivalries Conyo14 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was the original author of this article, but since there have been several additions to the article, I am going this route. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Basically every team is a rival with every other team, as exemplified by the meaningless made-up statement in the lead "The two teams have been rivals since the Flyers inception". If all the article can do is outline a history of meet-ups – which, again, every team has, including in decades of playoffs – and doesn't describe how the teams and fans actually view the rivalry to give it some substance, there is no reason for an article. The entire article is excessively wordy game descriptions one could make for any combination of teams, but nothing about the rivalry itself. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • But props to nom/creator for acknowledging the weakness of sources. Fine with a merge/redirect since there's already List of NHL rivalries#Boston Bruins vs. Philadelphia Flyers. Reywas92^Talk 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Whidborne (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 figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment He has had multiple articles written about him on the daily post such as [13] and [14]. Also at Oxford Mail [15]. There is also a short article on the BBC [16]. I think this article subject is worth taking a close look at. I will look further when I have more time before casting a keep/delete vote.Canary757 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep with addition of new reference below.Canary757 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In addition to the sources provided above, which each provide coverage about the subject, there is also [[17]], which allows for WP:NBASIC to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nowhere near enough non-routine IRS SIGCOV directly on Whidborne. The Leader article has barely two sentences on him individually—the rest is either general background on the pair's junior ice skating performance or in quotes—and the Daily Post announcements combined have about one sentence directly on him. The Oxford Mail article is routine coverage of, again, the pair, and additionally fails WP:YOUNGATH. The BBC press release is three sentences, with Josh Whidborne, 18, from Wheatley took the senior title being the extent of coverage of Whidborne, thus failing 3/4 GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per new citations that were found by Canary757 and Let'srun, notability is established and WP:NBASIC met.Shinadamina (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above sources. I reject JoelleJay's innacurate analysis of some of the sources. The two Daily Post articles each have a few paragraphs of SIGCOV about Whidborne's doubles skating career. The fact that the majority of this coverage is about Whidborne as part of a duet and not about him individually does not invalidate it in terms of GNG elegibility. The Leader article offers a more in-depth profile which can easily count toward GNG. The Oxford Mail piece also adds sigcov but JoelleJay correctly brings up YOUNGATH concerns as this was local coverage of the subject as a minor (with the other sources I mentioned, this one is not needed to establish GNG is met). Frank Anchor 20:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism (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)

Something of a procedural AfD. Article was subject to a delete !vote in 2014 but, irregularly, was turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. I say this was irregular because "redirect" was not the closer's notes. However this led to the eventual forking off of the present version of the page from the surviving redirect. I am personally neutral about whether to delete this article but felt an AfD would be an appropriate way of ascertaining present community consensus regarding how to handle it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research and WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's interesting to note that there are quite a few references to "progressive conservatism" on JStor - but not with regard to the Canadian political ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Likewise Google Books has reference to "progressive conservatism" in the comtext of US, UK and Japanese politics but, again, not in Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if the page contains original research and SYNTH, that is not a reason for deletion, at least not on its own (there are exceptions like WP:TNT for a completely unsalvageable page, which does seem to be the reason it was deleted 10 years ago). As the nominator demonstrated in their comment above, sources are out there to demonstrate the subject is notable, and notability requirements do not require that said sources are in the current version of the article. Can the page be made better? Absolutely. But there are no valid reasons for deletion presented here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also wanted to mention that the procedural reasons in the nom comments do not seem to be completely accurate (and even if they were, nominating a page for deletion because that's what the consensus was more than a full decade ago is strange to say the least).

This seems to be the sequence of events:

1. Ten years ago, this page was nominated for deletion and closed as delete. The day after, the page was made as a redirect. I get that one could say that's technically not what the consensus asked for, but there did not seem to be any prejudice against the redirect existing. At first, Progressive conservatism was a redirect to Progressive Conservative Party. At some point, it became a redirect to Compassionate conservatism.
2. 2 years later, this redirect was discussed, a discussion where a possible outcome was deleting the redirect. Instead, the redirect was changed to Progressive Conservative, a disambiguation page.
3. 2 more years later (2018), an editor again began the process of fleshing it back out into an article, something they very much had the right to do and was not in any way defying the years-old consensuses from the 2014 AfD and 2016 RfD.

Consensus does not last forever, nor does prejudice against recreation. Usually, 6 months is the amount of time editors are expected to wait before either renominating a kept page or recreating a deleted page. There's no official amount of time, but half a year seems to be the norm. This page was recreated 4 years after the deletion discussion, and has existed for the last six. The article has undergone sporadic development ever since then. Bringing it back to AfD in 2024 on the basis that the result of the 2014 AfD wasn't properly upheld is bizarre. There's no procedural need to have this discussion again, and without any WP:Reasons for deletion, it feels a little silly.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly aware that consensus doesn't last forever. However we had an article that was not deleted when it should have been. I felt sounding out the current consensus via an AfD would make sure we knew whether it should exist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is well sourced, well written, and covers a topic which is present across multiple countries and time periods, and which is, as far as I know, not covered by sections of any other articles. Rares Kosa (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the details of how to delete articles, but the bottom line issue about this article is the following: is there a a single subject of "Progressive conservatism" that this article is talking about or is this article showing multiple subjects put together on the assumption that there is a single subject called "Progressive conservatism"?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There is too much attempted control over freedom of speech and freedom of information. These articles explain the fundamental principles and information on the origins of political parties. These articles should exhaust to help others learn about the fundamental principles and origins of these parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taymac84 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I agree that much of the article is originally researched with connections to "progressive conservatism" not being made explicitly by the sources used, but that's grounds for the removal of problematic content, not deletion of an article. Evidently there is reliable, in-depth coverage of this topic. Yue🌙 09:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of the subject meeting WP:GNG. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Tamil Nadu. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic does not adhere WP:GNG and it lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable resources. B-Factor (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Sztárparádé (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:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Could not find any other sources other than routine coverage/listings for the recording. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Hungary. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto (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)

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I see WP:SIGCOV in the sources already presented (Globoesporte, Gazeta Esportiva, O Tempo), the player herself is not very famous but meets the criteria for the article. A quick Google search also turns up a lot of content. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is coverage of both her singles and doubles career on several major Brazilian sports portals: [20] [21] [22] Svartner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Svartner. Article needs a lot of work on subjective language. There have been several PRODS and AI generated tags put on its creator's other articles this week.Canary757 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I accept coverage has now been found but I stand by the point that she is non-notable and the article itself is like a fan page full of Peacocking and puff and very little by way of actual facts. Shrug02 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I've made a tentative start to address the peacock tag Shrug02, will do a thorough one later.Canary757 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford BioLabs (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)

It seems like this article was entirely created for promotional reasons. The only thing notable about the company is their product, TRX2. An article for the founder Thomas Whitfield also exists, which seems to be full of promotional content as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three articles to one, probably to TRX2. There's just about enough for one article here but certainly not for three. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Their hair product has gotten into the news, and not all of it promotional and favorable. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Minami (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:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, 10 games in J2 League and lack of secondary, significant and independent sources. The Japanese Wikipedia has one article about being a school coach, which isn't enough for SPORTCRIT in my opinion. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey) (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)

Unscourced BLP for a player who never played in a major league and does not meet guidelines at WP:SPORTBASIC. Kimikel (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sourcing on him aside from prospect sites. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible keep. His Eurohockey profile indicates he played 25 years professionally. Surely there are sources in foreign languages? For example: Polish Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia Searching in Russian for hockey-related articles is a bit difficult due to the businessman Alexander Medvedev's involvement in hockey. Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey) also coached the U18 national team for Iceland. Did anyone search in a foreign language? It's rather frustrating that nobody has mentioned what was searched. Providing more details is helpful for working together. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I tried searching in English articles as well as Icelandic. I did a basic search on the Belarusian Telegraph Agency and it yielded nothing. Plus the other wikis don't have sources that attribute to a WP:BLP article anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006 (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 private member’s bill which was not enacted. The references cited are to Seanad debates, which don’t indicate notability beyond the many PMBs each year, and one from an organisation which was responsible for drafting the bill. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Or, failing that, merge/redirect to Genealogical_Office#Questions_over_legal_status_of_the_office. As an alternative to outright deletion. (As noted in nomination, there is nothing to indicate that this failed bill has any lasting notability. That it was created by a contributor with a username indicating a vested interest does very little to help. Text on this (non)event can easily be covered within the article which covers the office involved. Whether/not a redirect is retained won't really impact the "discoverability" of that text.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Spleodrach (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - both private bills and bills that are not passed into law are not usually considered notable, and to be both is doubly not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Blue Crunchy Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not indicate how the band are notable per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. It looks like they had some popularity around Milwaukee but I can't find significant discussion of them in other reliable sources. Google search brings up results in the usual social media sources and music databases but nothing that indicates they meet Wikipedia's criteria. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Wisconsin. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Anderson (model) (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)

Refunded after soft deletion. All the sourcing on this fashion model is over-the-top promotional material, nearly all un-bylined, in sources of questionable independence and reliability (examples: Isaac Anderson 3000 is the modern Renaissance man, blending intellect, sustainability, and fashion into a tapestry that feels revolutionary yet timeless and Isaac Anderson is celebrated not only as a fashion icon but also as a trailblazer who has redefined the fashion landscape.) In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources and so I don't see a pass of WP:GNG (much less WP:NMODEL). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Ghana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep — @Dclemens1971.This sounds like a target to me though I might be wrong . I was doing some checks and I realized you’re the same editor that did that first nomination. The reason for both nominations are the same. For the first nomination I completely agree as the reasons as at that time was valid but I have a problem with this one. “All sources are over-the top promotional” this is not true if you check all the sources. One source was even talking about a scam call, how’s a scam call promotional for a model? Secondly you said nearly all unbylined. This is also not true. I can see only one source unbyline(the first source). For the promotional words you wrote , yes true it sounds promotional but even that that’s the conclusion of the article and the promotional is not throughout every article as you stated. You also said the sources’ independence is questionable. In a discussion by experienced editors about countries which are affected by system bias , some these sources were discussed. This is the link , https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana & https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources . The subject has been featured in a notable show(CBS morning show). I think it should be included in the English Encyclopedia. Maconzy3 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to the content in my BEFORE search, most of which was unbylined. But multiple sources in the article are indeed unbylined. Here's my source analysis:

  • Vanguard. No byline. Highly promotional.
  • Modern Ghana. Bylined but also highly promotional. This reads like marketing, not an independent, reliable news outlet. The author appears to have written only this article for Modern Ghana, so is likely not to be a reporter or a legitimate journalist.
  • PeaceFM. No byline. Promotional. Appears to be based entirely on quotes from Anderson.
  • Pulse. Bylined, but very promotional, by an "journalist" whose entire oeuvre appears to consist of spam.
  • CBS News. This is an article about Anderson's brother with a three-sentence WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Isaac Anderson.
  • GhanaCelebrities.com. An unreliable celebrity gossip blog.
  • Graphic.com.gh. Another puff piece.

  Perhaps this is the discussion you meant to link? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers. It makes clear that the Nigerian sources list of the WikiProject is questionable. Either way, all we have on Anderson are puff pieces, unbylined or by writers with sketchy credentials, or articles that mention him trivially. No independent and reliable SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  About bylined and unbylined. You can only say multiple if it’s two or more. Only one which is vanguard Nigeria is Unbylined. For PeaceFM it’s at the buttom. It shows it’s from Isaac Anderson/Peacefm. So definitely an interview reporting but it is not promotional. The vanguard news has a promotional tone for that I agree. You said modernghana.com has a questionable independence, I’d advice you do research on things you’re not familiar with. Modernghana is one of the biggest news sites in Ghana although their reliability in this discussion (https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana ) is unclear. Even that I agree that it has a promotional tone but not marketing but I think educating you previously was important. The CBS news was only used to verify the subject’s education as it was mentioned. The Graphic newspaper is state owned newpaper that is considered generally reliable according to this (https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=crain_ford&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana ) . You also shared a link to a discussion. The discussion was about Nigerian sources not Ghanaian. The only Nigerian source here is Vanguard. I agree with you on few things but your generalization and exaggeration is making it hard for me to agree completely. I think some sources should be removed but I still stand that on my point that the article should be kept. Maconzy3 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the PeaceFM attribution of "Source" to Anderson to be the photos of Anderson, but if you're saying that Isaac Anderson wrote that piece, it's even less eligible to demonstrate notability since it's not remotely independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nominator's reason and source analysis. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pamilya Sagrado episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a contested draftification and AfC rejection. This list provides nothing that isn't already at Pamilya Sagrado. An article consisting entirely of a list of episodes is a policy violation — Wikipedia is not a catalog. I would recommend redirecting to Pamilya Sagrado. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pamilya Sagrado Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST, this article needs secondary sources. Since there wasn't any of those, it fails to meet WP:GNG. Agreed with the recommendation. JRGuevarra (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Pamilya Sagrado per above. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment MOS:TVSPLIT might be applicable to this Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lars B. Andersen (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 businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are:

• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of him in the context of his company ([23], [24], [25], [26])
• WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([27], [28], [29], [30])
• More trivial mentions in the context of a GWR attempt that has since been superseded or his election activities.

Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search, and the civic appointments are not so rare that they constitute awards per WP:ANYBIO #1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Norway, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable businessman. No WP:SIGCOV, trivial mentions in media; 'civic appointments' aren't notable (anyone working in the City can become a "Freeman of the City"). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true.

  There are three grounds for Freedom of the City. 1. Nomination by Worshipful Company, 2. Nomination by two liverymen of the City of London or 3. By invitation.

  You can't simply apply. Teacher2019 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is untrue. The City of London website says: "There are several ways to apply for the Freedom: by servitude, by patrimony, by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company.... Persons who have been on the City of London Electoral Roll for a minimum of one year may obtain the Freedom without the need for an application visit or Common Council approval. There is no fee in such cases and applicants should advise that they are on the Ward List.... Applications are made via email..." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the update. Yes, that confirms the 3 grounds I mentioned which are 'servitude, by patrimony, by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company'. The other way to obtain the freedom of the city is if you live there, not 'anyone working in the City'. So we are both correct in different ways :) However, according to the City of London article 'the City has a small resident population of 8,583 based on 2021 census figures'.

  FYI I am still a relative newbie navigating my way around WP so forgive transgressions of the usual protocol! Teacher2019 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "By nomination" is as simple as any two electors nominating someone. It really isn't in any way a big deal (as opposed to honorary freedom of the city). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article had some broken links, and they are now fixed. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: articles from government sites and major label magazine with picture of him seems not to be trivial. Found and added mentions from Portuguese [[31]] and US main newsmedia sources [[32]][[33]] with interviews (see article). Multiple articles discuss him at length as the subject of the article, so article fulfils WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Zralba (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The government sites are discussions of his company that trivially mention him. The Labels and Labelling magazines source is a WP:TRADES publication that is considered non-independent. The Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS you linked are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES since they consist entirely of his answers; they are not independent sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This person meets the notability criteria with significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That he was selected by the now UK prime minister (who must have visited many companies that day) is significant and adds to notability. Teacher2019 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you outline what you regard as WP:SIGCOV, please? There are a total of 11 sources. One is passing mention - literally a caption on a photo. Two are about the company he is CEO of getting an award - but notability is not inherited. Three just cite membership of organisations or positions held. Another is just passing mention in a "thank you" speech. Another is about an ancestor. One cites his wife's name. That essentially leaves two references. Meanwhile, there are five 'citation needed' tags currently on the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This page is pretty much an advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think the subject of the article does show to be involved in at senhor levels ie various institutions as part of the City of London and its unique heritage. My personal research of the subject lead me here and has added my research. Charliecroft (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reason me ruined earlier I think there is genuine notability in the context of City of London Livery history Charliecroft (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned earlier. Apologies auto correct

Charliecroft (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Lust (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 find no evidence that this musical ever came to fruition, let alone that it ran on Broadway. Zero coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was supposed to premiere at the Stella Adler Theater in Los Angeles, a 99-seat house. There is little indication that it did, and the theater's website "history" page has a 2010 paragraph that lists productions but does NOT list "Divine Lust". But even if it did run there or anywhere, it got exactly no press coverage or critical attention of any kind. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) (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)

Per AfD on the same individual. CNC (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. CNC (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the other AfD. Nothing much found other than trivial mentions in match reports and database sources. Since both AfDs are regarding the same person, if one is deemed non-notable, then so must the other. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, same as other AfD. Snowycats (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominator of the Ryo page. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources shown on the other linked AfD, with the two articles needing to be merged on whichever is the correct date, 1990, or 1989 (Japanese versions seem to suggest this one is correct)

Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(33128) 1998 BU48 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NASTCRIT. Cremastra (u — c) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it has been part of small scale studies and has had its spectrum analysed [34][35] and also there is an occultation prediction [36]. --C messier (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: there's enough mention in studies to indicate at least marginal notability. It has a large magnitude range and a slow rotation period, which suggests it is a contact binary with high probability.[37] Praemonitus (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotional article for a supplement producer that fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is all actual or regurgitated press releases or other non-independent work (such as a journal article that Celfull paid for in part). No independent coverage here that isn't WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, California, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT due to a failure of valid sources. Rosentad (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Ka Thana district (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)

Requesting for deletion because the Government of Rajasthan abolished this district. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think that deletion would be the best option - somebody searching for this would probably want an article covering the same area now, and maybe an explanation of why it doesn't exist any more. Perhaps merge into List of districts of Rajasthan? Adam Sampson (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is already an article for this area thats why i am requesting it for deletion see here TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per WP:DEFUNCTS we keep former administrative units and notable per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - But i want to share some information here that these are only announced to become a new district in future by the Ashok Gehlot government last year and now they are abolished by new government.TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Abolition or is no longer administered is not a valid rationale for deletion here.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's notable enough for a topic even though it's been abolished, though right now the state of the article is just marginally better than redirecting it somewhere. That's not an argument for redirecting, but it is an argument for improving it... SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kepp : as there are several pages of former districts still exist on Wikipedia

Example : South Arcot District (Madras Presidency)

WikiEdits2003 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pages may be redirected to the existing one i.e. Sikar district WikiEdits2003 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:DEFUNCTS and Abolition of states ,districts ,nations is not valid rationale for deletion and is notable as per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Masood (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)

It is hard to find substantial coverage that could meet WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't seem to fit notability criteria for bureaucrats or notability in general.

Xoocit (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons noted above. Also, as an adjunct professor he fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic (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)

"Lebanese Aramaic" is an unattested variety and the term is not used in the literature — the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOR. It relies almost entirely on an article by a Maronite cultural association (and even it does not use the term "Lebanese Aramaic"), which is not a valid scholarly source (WP:SOURCE) and contains fringe views that are very far outside of the linguistic consensus such as that that "West" Syriac is an "Aramaized" descendent of Caananite. None of the other sources used in the article mention "Lebanese Aramaic", but rather Aramaic or Syriac — the "history" of the alleged variety is collated (violating WP:SYNTH) from discussions of Aramaic and Syriac in general, not from "Lebanese Aramaic" specifically. Most of the linguistic content of the article does not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" (as this variety is unattested and thus undescribed), but rather Syriac or even Lebanese Arabic. In the previous discussion from December 2023 on whether the article should be deleted, two users came out in favour of keeping it, leading to a "no consensus" result and the article being kept. However, at no point did either of the two users touch on any of the of the arguments against keeping the article (i.e. in actually referencing editorial policy), with one user even making the false claim that Lebanese Arabic is primarily descended from Aramaic ("the current spoken Lebanese is a continuation of Surien"). No valid sources have been added since the discussion in December 2023. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 17:41, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep concerns from the nominator not withstanding, it seems that if there is an issue here, the best route is going to try and clean it up first before deletion. Perhaps there are other references out there. There seem to be many in this article, and this definitely does not appear to be original research. I find it hard to believe that a language that existed for hundreds of years cannot pass GNG standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As said, the article does have references, but they crucially do not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" at all, as this is not a term used in the literature, meaning their use violates NOR. Western Aramaic and Syriac are both attested languages — "Lebanese Aramaic" is not. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that's true, then it shouldn't hurt to wait just to be safe to ensure there isn't something else out there mentioning Lebanese Aramaic. Happy to change my opinion if no one comes forward with new information. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as a 2nd nomination already existed prior to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese Aramaic (2nd nomination), I have moved this to a 3rd nomination page Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buccaneers–Eagles 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)

Non-notable rivalry of two teams that have only played each other 24 times since 1977. Frankly I've never heard of this even being called a rivalry between these two teams. Draftification was objected to, and seems to be largely based on one article writer's opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry exists. The article clings to a CBS blog that lists this series among the top rivalries of the 2000s. While CBS is certainly a top authority on NFL coverage, this particular blog has only a couple paragraphs of content on this series and does little to describe the teams as “rivals” outside of the title. Even if this was significant coverage of the teams as rivals, which it is not, GNG would still not be met as it requires multiple sources. Frank Anchor 17:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose a merge/redirect to List of NFL rivalries. If this series fails GNG as a rivalry, then it shouldn’t be included on the list of rivalries either. Frank Anchor 03:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete mainly because that CBS article is not very indicative of significant coverage, but this [40] provides a bit more to their early 2000s playoff matches, though I haven't seen any other sources as in-depth as this one. Conyo14 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Basically every team is a rival with every other team. If all the article can do is outline a history of meet-ups and doesn't describe how the teams and fans actually view the rivalry to give it some substance, there is no reason for an article. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just a random pairing of two NFL teams with no memorable games that I can recall (nor listed in the article) to spark a rivalry. There seem to be some other, equally questionable "rivalries" in the List of NFL rivalries, e.g. Colts–Jaguars rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Clarityfiend: There are certainly some questionable rivalry articles. With that said, you'd be unlikely to see a rivalry article between two division opponents deleted. I would however support the nominations of a number of other rivalry articles that aren't about division opponents. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There does actually seem to be some coverage of this, e.g. 'A lot of history' between Bucs and Eagles ("Not too long ago, the Eagles-Buccaneers rivalry was one of the fiercest non-divisional matchups in the NFL"), Tampa Bay looks back to when the rivalry was real, Bucs, Eagles know each other well: Rivalry forms as they've met six times since 1999, Eagles, Buccaneers renew rivalry at new stadium, Tampa Vs. Philadelphia Rivalry Has A Deep History. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think my issue is that this is largely predicated on meeting in the playoffs for 3 straight years. That doesn't create a long term rivalry in my opinion, more of a flash in the pan of a rivalry instead. My perspective is that rivalry articles should be more long standing, instead of relying on what amounts primarily to a 3-season stretch that most people have forgotten about. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeanieFan11 - Here's some more 1, 2, 3, 4. KatoKungLee (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at these sources, source 1 appears to be from a SI fan site, #2 is from one of the teams (so not independent), #3 uses language like "used to be a rivalry" (so not anymore), and "will become a rivalry again" (so not right now), #4 is fine but quite local and #5 is similar but places even less of an emphasis of this being a real rivalry. I think a select merge regarding this rivalry at List of NFL rivalries#Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Philadelphia Eagles using some of the sources from Beanie and moving it to the historical rivalries of that article is the best outcome as the WP:NRIVALRY isn't met here as a standalone article with a lack of sustained coverage from non-local outlets. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple sources significant coverage from reliable publications over a span of at least two decades Tampa Vs. Philadelphia Rivalry Has A Deep History (2024), Buccaneers, Eagles renew old rivalry (2009), Bucs, Eagles know each other well - Rivalry forms as they've met 6 times since 1999 (2003), Emotional opener - Eagles, Buccaneers renew rivalry at new stadium (2003). Given the discussion above it should be noted that per WP:UNDUE "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." so editors personal opinions on whether something should or should not be considered a rivalry doesn't matter, only whether reliable sources consider it to have been a rivalry. Furthermore, notability is not temporary per WP:NOTTEMPORARY so if something was a rivalry and had significant coverage over multiple years about said rivalry then it doesn't matter if it is not considered a rivalry today. However, if the article and sources cover periods before and after the time of the rivalry then maybe it is better to simply change the name to Buccaneers–Eagles series or Buccaneers–Eagles matchups. Alvaldi (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Boy, I sure do wish I could read those Newspapers links :( Conyo14 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Conyo14: Now you can! – [41] [42] [43] (p2) [44]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BeanieFan11: Here's another that could be of use , though it's from the Bucs' site. This could be of use too. Here's something small from CBS. If you happen to have any football magazines or books, there may be something there.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, but I don't think the Buccaneers site is useful for notability as its not independent. Still undecided at the moment. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @KatoKungLee [45] and [46] are not independent sources and thus do not go towards a WP:GNG pass. Alvaldi (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alvaldi - I think they could be of use in the article.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is probably perfectly fine to use them in the article to source some facts, but as they are not independent sources so they do not help establish that the article passes WP:GNG which is needed for it not to be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To me these don't demonstrate WP:LASTING. It was supposedly a short term rivalry because they met in the playoffs for a few years, but it's not something that's actually treated as a rivalry from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]