Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

Guide to deletion

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Twenty20

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for any of these articles; all of them fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Caribbean. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, nominated the season articles. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Major T20 domestic competition of an ICC Full Member. AA (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per AA. St Anselm (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are no policy-based opinions. Discussion should focus on whether good sources are available (WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the season articles into the parent one. Event itself is noteworthy but with the relative scarcity of coverage it seems like all the necessary information could be combined into one place. I would be happy to take on the task if that is the decision.

Shrug02 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: lots of news coverage in fact: [1][2][3] etc. St Anselm (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- moderate -- I think the sources are there... either in the article or per StAnselm. Alternatively, would support a merger into Champions League Twenty20 as-proffered by Shrug02. MWFwiki (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -- WP:TRAINWRECK I'd say. Maybe individual seasons are non-notable, but they should be nominated individually. I can see a lot of coverage about Caribbean Twenty20 and at least the main topic meets WP:NEVENT. Gheus (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PhillComm Global

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

No indication of WP:SIGCOV, possible advertisement TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No coverage online outside of self-published materials and the limited, PR-style, Forbes article (fails WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV, as mentioned in nom.). Could also be self-published. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:SPAM. Blatantly promotional tone, for a small PR firm less than four years old. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not a free web host nor LinkedIn. We are a charity, and using us is a violation of our tax-exempt status. Protect against likely re-creation. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam, no reliable press coverage. BoraVoro (talk) 08:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maulana Shakhawat

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

Fails to fulfill WP:NPOL and Wp:GNG.–𝐎��𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Bangladesh. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:17, 25 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!} 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES - we have deleted literally hundreds, if not thousands, of similar articles about party leaders and counselors. He has never held elected office. There is no direct, exact translation of Nayab-i-Ameer, but literally it means deputy and leader, thus vice chairman, of a party. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Coco

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

Previously moved to Draft, which means that WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral draftification. Consensus based draftification remains a possibility alongside deletion or retention. Fails WP:NCORP as presented here, crammed with WP:CITEKILL, is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Turkey. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill business without any significant coverage in reliable sources, press releases, blogs, and industry publications notwithstanding. There's literally not a single verifiable fact on the page, such as a stock market abbreviation or sales data, making it not even wrong. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. This is not a deletion discussion at all, merge discussion can be held on the talk page. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turaiha

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

Article already exists --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turahiya Quantum^Realm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 18:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Uttar Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these are two Roman spellings of the same caste then one article should simply be redirected to the other. I don't know which is the more common spelling in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Both variant articles have long histories, dating back to 2009 for this and 2011 for the other. The other currently has more substantial content, though this one has had substantial additions and subtractions. Wouldn't this be better handled as a Merge-from / Merge-to proposal, so that the better target name and content could be established on article Talk? AllyD (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Please identify the Merge target article. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one into another. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I agree. Quantum^Realm (meow🦁 • pawtrack🐾) 17:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Pokémon Pocket Monsters. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon volumes

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

INDISCRIMINATE list of volumes from a variety of non-notable manga series, with their only similarity being that they're related to Pokémon. List of chapter information with no context as to why this split is notable nor necessary, and has no reason to exist separately from any other article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pokémon Pocket Monsters. Not long enough to satisfy a WP:SPLIT. Merge the remaining info to the main article. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merge here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Alenda

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

Delete or Modify Wikipedia is not a Scholar Profile website, It denotes an advertising campaign scheme that the same user has three articles around the same author in different wikipedias, and at least it must be revised with critical focus. Fitmoos (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitmoos: It is illogical to say that there is a publicity campaign scheme, since various reliable sources are used to prove the relevance of the biographee, that is, her sociological analysis of one of the main political spectrums in Chile, which has even caught the attention of progressive media that have consulted her.

You also claimed a few days ago that the articles about the biographee and her book were definitely deleted, when this is currently being discussed due to how controversial your request for speedy deletion was. If it was to be deleted, it must at least go through a discussion phase that you obstructed (apart from that, the fact that its deletion is being discussed in one language does not automatically mean that it should be the same in a Wikipedia in another language, since they have their own rules). Carigval.97 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The biographee in question has a substantial number of reiliable sources and has been referenced in multiple academic publications and literary works (see this). The user who posted the template has not given any reasons for why he did so. --Igallards7 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reasons for deletion are arbitraries, because Alenda meets the following reasons according to the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (academics)": 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources –There are authors who study the right or extreme right according to their guidelines–; 3) The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics) –in this case, Alenda has been member of the ISA or the IPSA–; 6) The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society –Alenda is a founding member and head of the sociology program in the Andrés Bello University (UNAB)–; and 7) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity —She has influenced in politicians, the Chilean press and other scholars—. --Carigval.97 (Carigval.97) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:PROF, Professor Alenda, in addition to being an encyclopedic contribution due to her academic position, is a member of important sociological organizations and founded a school of her discipline -- 6UNK3R (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitmoos: it looks like you started the nomination for this page, but never completed it. Can you please complete the process, including adding your rationale for deletion? If this isn't done, it should be ~~speedily kept~~ as an invalid AfD. pburka (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitmoos: I've moved your comment into the deletion rationale. I'm going to fix this AfD for you, but next time you must carefully follow ALL of the steps in WP:AFDHOWTO. pburka (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, France, and Chile. pburka (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. Wikipedia does indeed include biographies of scholars and academics, the existence of articles in other-language Wikipedias is beside the point here (each language has its own inclusion standards and one editor being involved in multiple languages does not prove WP:COI), and an unsupported assertion that the article needs "a critical focus" is not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOReaster. No valid argument had been made to delete. It's irrelevant for notability here whether other Wikipedias exist, or have agreed with notability. I made a couple of copy edits; it certainly could use some more work, but it's not really that bad. An argument could be made that her citations are low, but that is a recurrent issue in both Spanish-language academia and amongst academics in political science, who boycott each other (insert sinister laugh here). Bearian (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per XOReaster. I don't object to a speedy renomination by another editor who's willing to conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE and present a legitimate deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to T3 (Tram İzmir). No P&G-based arguments for retention have been presented. Editors are welcome to boldly BLAR any other non-notable stations on this line, linking to this AfD in the edit summary. Owen× ☎ 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)

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

Appears to lack any significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Note that train stations have no inherent notability (per WP:NTRAINSTATION) and I'm just not seeing anything beyond routine sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect T3 (Tram İzmir) as ATD. The creator made articles for every station and they cannot be WP:BLARED since there already has been a draftification attempt, so might be good to convert this to a batch nom? Jumpytoo Talk 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jumpytoo: I do intend to nominate the rest of the recent creations as a batch, but I prefer to test the waters first before doing a batch nom that could end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, why can't they be redirected due to being draftified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify I meant BLARED without discussion, since the draftification was opposed they have to go through AfD Jumpytoo Talk 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still confused, since drafting isn't redirecting, I'm not seeing why "opposed draftification" means "cannot boldy redirect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If one opposed draftification, it would be reasonable to expect they would oppose a redirection too. Theres nothing that disallows a BLAR after draftification, but it usually will be fruitless since it would likely be reverted and youd have to AfD anyways Jumpytoo Talk 17:38, 23 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!} 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to line, I did my best to find sources and did not find any independent sigcov of this station. Turkish Wikipedia's sources were not helpful. Support similarly redirecting other station articles to this line. Toadspike [Talk] 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concerns about notability, but I believe that the articles on the stations are important and can be kept. The stations on the Izmir T3 tram line play a significant role in the city's public transportation infrastructure, and I am willing to support their notability with additional sources and content.

The Izmir T3 line is a vital part of the city's transportation network, and these stations are integral to that. There are independent sources, such as local news articles and reports about transportation, that cover these stations and their significance. I am happy to provide these sources to demonstrate that the stations are notable beyond routine sources.

To strengthen the articles and address the notability concerns, I propose:

Independent news sources: Adding citations from local newspapers, transportation reports, and public relations materials to highlight the stations' role in Izmir's transport system.
Their contribution to public transport: Emphasizing the importance of these stations in the context of the wider public transport network in Izmir.
Diverse sourcing: Supplementing the articles with a broader range of sources, such as independent studies or official reports, to give a clearer picture of their significance.

Given their role in the transportation system, I believe these stations do meet the notability guidelines. If there are any specific additional sources you would recommend, I am open to including them.

I also understand the concerns and am open to improving the articles further. I believe with the right additions, these articles can meet Wikipedia's standards for notability.

Thank you again for your input! Erdem Ozturk 2021 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply "propose" diverse, independent news sources. If such sources exist (and I believe they don't), you should find them and bring them to this discussion. The above comment is quite clearly AI-generated and a waste of community time; I don't understand why this AfD was relisted. Toadspike [Talk] 14:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to line valid arguments expressed above for redirect. BoraVoro (talk) 09:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With legitimate concerns raised about the nominator, and some suspicious (canvassed? Socks?) voters, I do not see consensus to take any action. Owen× ☎ 09:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undetectable.ai

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, no WP:CORPDEPTH upon closer inspection, it is clearly a WP:FAILCORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondust534 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the nominator here is User:Moondust534.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of text and references were excised in the fortnight prior to this AfD nomination (old version here). While the likes of OK Magazine are unlikely to provide much for WP:CORPDEPTH, others, including paywalled journal articles, may provide more for evaluation. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added a bunch of sources back. A simple Google Search seems to demonstrate notability as well as copy cat companies. Here are some significant sources: https://radaronline.com/p/alan-from-mighty-med-condemns-ai-cheats-then-explains-how-to-cheat-with-ai/ https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/ https://knewz.com/new-ai-mimics-real-writing-no-one-can-tell/ https://www.techtudo.com.br/dicas-e-tutoriais/2023/10/undetectableai-como-saber-se-um-texto-foi-escrito-pelo-chatgpt-edsoftwares.ghtml https://gritdaily.com/devan-leos-talks-about-diversity-and-inclusion-in-ai/

2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting that User talk:Moondust534 is a new user, who has been in trouble for inappropriate closures before. This company is very controversial, and is the first I could find that created an adversarial AI technology, and seems the concept will be an important note in AI history. 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting that @Moondust534 seems to be a new user with nine edits, and appears to have vandalized the page, removing a myriad of sources before flagging this page for deletion. It seems clear the user does not have a coherent grasp on WP policy, and furthermore, @Moondust534 seems to have intentionally removed sources before nominating, as noted by @AllyD

2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Who vandalized the page? I do not agree. Wikipedia rules say to remove sources that do not meet the RS requirements before nomination the page. Moondust534 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: BBC article and Bartneck study provide significant coverage. This is sufficient for a Keep. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on existing coverage such as Scoop, Hollywood Life, THIS and BBC.Shinadamina (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With doubts being cast on nominator and the only editor arguing for Delete also being very new to the project, I'd like to hear from some experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources like BBC, OK! Magazine, Knews, and independent research seem to meet sigcov and seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH given the research and media coverage. I did a search on Google Scholar and found new research of the software:
1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sayim-Aktay/publication/381110349_THE_RISK_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_IN_EDUCATION_AND_AI_DETECTION_TOOLS/links/665d6979479366623a3a6415/THE-RISK-OF-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-IN-EDUCATION-AND-AI-DETECTION-TOOLS.pdf
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02537176241247934
3. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GKMC-03-2024-0133/full/html Also seems they were even written about in a book recently too: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1TM0EQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=undetectable.ai&ots=Xl-pKUarG6&sig=Ib2-scy64I2IF-QxJsQhb_QH9Us#v=onepage&q=undetectable.ai&f=false I see sources in Portuguese and from the Philipenes, UK, and US media which all make a strong case for notability. I look at edit history as well, as others previously mentioned, found it strange the sources were in fact deleted without proper explanation just before page nominated for AfD

Taksoh17 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is bluntly promotional. Hollywood Life, Scoop Moondust534 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, none of the sources are related to the category to demonstrate notability. WP:CORPTRIV WP:ORGTRIV There is no independent in-depth coverage of the company. The main source reveled by Google search is https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/comments/1g3198i/undetectable_ai_review_is_it_legit/

Self-made "academic research", not reflected in any media looks beyond doubtful. Sources added about accolades or impact do not provide in-depth coverage or any vendee of receiving any industry awards or recognition.

"Usage and impact"

In November 2023, EarthWeb used Undetectable.ai alongside GPTZero to analyze celebrity apology statements.thechainsaw.com
https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/
In January 2024, SourceFed announced plans to use Undetectable.ai for AI content detection. sourcefed.com
A January 2024 report listed Undetectable AI as the 35th most visited AI software in 2023 out of 150 analyzed.https://www.flexos.work/learn/generative-ai-top-150

Moondust534 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the edition section that got my attention. The section about the criminal records was removed several times. The creator of the article seems to be blocked 7 times, with sock puppet accounts. The no account edits made specifically on this page by 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 are questionable.

cur prev 13:10, 9 April 2024 Comintell talk contribs m 11,165 bytes −1,489 Reverted 1 edit by Sesame119 (talk) to last revision by Comintell undo thank Tags: Twinkle Undo
curprev 03:47, 9 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs 12,654 bytes +1,489 I created a controversies section, partially taken from an existing page on actor Devan Leos who is also the CMO of Undetectable AI using sources that were already approved for that page. I also added to this the criminal history of the founder and CEO Christian Perry and provided the court record as a source.undothank Tag: Reverted
- cur prev 20:00, 8 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs 12,115 bytes +950 →Reception and analysis: I added a subsection on two of the senior executives involved with this company including its founder. It is notable that two executive officers have a history of felonious behavior. I presented this information in an unbiased way and it is simply to inform the public about the background of two people deeply involved in the development. undo thank

Moondust534 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also got hot a hostile message on my page demanding me to withdraw the nomination from 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470. While nomination is a fair discussion, and everyone is open to contribute. A similar message, written in the same style by the sock puppet Comintell can be found on the page of editor Sesame119 who raised concerns about the criminal records of the individuals mentioned in the article. Moondust534 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Moondust, please contribute in good faith. 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:F5E6:A8A5:A9C1:45E5 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a company and an eponymous product, delivered as a web service. The company is marginal, but in favour of it, there are sources like [4] which gives us something to say about the company, but which may fail WP:ORGIND. If this page were just about the company, I would look at that more deeply. However what this page is really about is the product, and per WP:NPRODUCT the company can appropriately be treated in the page of the notable project - which will be particularly sensible as long as this remains their only notable product. The product must also have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Passing mentions will not do, and neither will primary sources. But we have enough. For instance Taloni, Scorcia, & Giannaccare (2024) Modern threats in academia: evaluating plagiarism and artificial intelligence detection scores of ChatGPT. [5], which paper has 12 citations and is an excellent source. Likewise Lebrun, Temtsin, Vonasch & Bartneck, (2024). Detecting the corruption of online questionnaires by artificial intelligence. [[6]] The BBC and other news sources add to the picture, even if they can be challenged. I don't see the point in going through them laboriously. The research papers alone carry the product over the line. As for the arguments about the page being promotional - deletion is not for cleanup. But in any follow on clean up, be careful not to remove good independent reliable secondary sources. The trimming prior to nomination appears to have been too much, and it would have been better to leave the artucle unchanged before nomination. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom, delete. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep‎. No further reason for deletion presented, and this article blanking with several others and several struck copyvios today suggest the nom is not acting in good faith; I would highly suggest Thenewave not pursue any further AfD discussions at this time. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Great American Dynasty

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

Fails WP:NSONG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenewave (talk • contribs)

Strong keep – "Fails WP:NSONG" without explanation/rationale is not a reason. The fact that more than a dozen sources discuss this song, and the article managed to fetch an impressive degree of detail already refutes the NSONG claim.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:15, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Several reliable sources have discussed the song in separate independent articles, and it charted on multiple national charts and received multiple certifications. No rationale for why it "fails WP:NSONG" is provided here. Medxvo (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanad Zakaria Warsame

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

Unsourced and does not meet WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG requirements. Completely unsourced article going on 13+ years, and has had no major edits (barring the metadata box removal April 28, 2016) since 2010 (all other edits since 2010 have been wikilinking and template/grammatical adjustments). No reliable sources are immediately apparent, so nominating for AfD. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ethiopia. Zinnober9 (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any secondary English language sources at all that didn't trace back to Wikipedia. I had no luck finding the unspecified BBC World News article that is the only source, couldn't find any coverage about an assassination on 8 July 2008 in Jijiga, and couldn't work out what EVIFF actually is. I'm not sure whether being "senior congressman of the ONLF" confers any notability, but I couldn't find a source to verify it anyway. Unless someone is able to track down any Somali language sources, I think this has to be a delete given that I essentially couldn't verify anything in the article. MCE89 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:NPOL, and WP:V. I think by "Congress", the editor meant the party organization of which he was a member. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prisca Abah

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

Unremarkable model. This [7] appears purchased (similarly to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA but in Ghana), this [8] [9] does not seem like a reliable site, these [10] [11] [12] links are dead (but appear promotional originally), this [13] barely mentions her, and this [14] is a blog. 🄻 🄰 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Ghana. 🄻 🄰 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Subject is an ordinary model and advisor to a Model United Nations type of organization. It's so filled with weasel words and promotional material that a total re-write is necessary. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to provide reliable sources, and some links are dead. Aona1212 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian Airlines Flight 3830

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. An incident while the aircraft is taxiing after maintenance with no passengers on board is not notable. The aircraft was not in revenue service at the time, so assigning a flight number is improper. I can not find significant coverage of this incident, with the only WP:RS being this brief accident report. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation, Transportation, Malaysia, and Saudi Arabia. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article contradicts itself too. If the aircraft was written off (hull loss) I doubt it carried 319 passengers later... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boeing 747 hull losses#2000s. Article itself is non-notable and doesn't meet WP:GNG, but the incident itself is mentioned on the aforementioned page with a flight number (not-sure exactly where its from, but it does show up elsewhere online). Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, no lasting effects. I would also (weakly) oppose a redirect as the mention of a flight number makes no sense and is unsourced. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a stub, and another problem is that it doesn't cite any sources for whatever reason... not to mention the topic of the article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. TG-ARTICLE Well, if you want to talk to me, then why don't you click this button? There's also my contributions. 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article has no sources and contains unverified claims, so should either be draftified or deleted; redirecting doesn't make sense in this case, because the flight number is not valid (as multiple editors have pointed out). (The accident report found by the nominator does not fully verify the claims made in the article either.) I was about to !vote delete but subsequently found a few articles that suggest that there is more to the story of this 2001 incident, as discussed in this 2023 article in Simple Flying magazine titled "The Boeing 747-300 That Was Written Off After Taxiing Into A Ditch"; the 2001 Arab News articles about the incident including "Saudia plane skids into monsoon drain" and "Malaysia Firm Blamed for Saudia Mishap". Avia Magazine (2014) may also provide a few additional facts, though this incident was mentioned as one of 18 instances in which aircraft were lost by Saudia. But perhaps the facts gleaned from these sources could be merged into Boeing 747 hull losses#2000s as suggested above. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG. No sources cited and no significant coverage. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 06:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously an WP:MILL case, and lacks any sources, and it already got an WP:SNOW falling. Protoeus (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2031 Africa Cup of Nations

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. A redirect with this same title was also deleted for the same reason in November 2024 (see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 31#2031 Africa Cup of Nations). CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Africa. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. It it way too soon for this article to exist. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need to stamp out the perceived need to create articles years ahead of time. Wikipedia does not stage a contest to be the first to create such articles. Geschichte (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and that it's unreferenced with no information, other than that an event may take place in 2031. - :Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as way WP:TOOSOON. Not enough information known to even warrant a redirect to parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Selection of host/s for the 2029 tournament is ongoing. No WP:SIGCOV on this future event. QEnigma talk 11:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Gauravs 51 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I would have voted for the article to be moved to the draft space if there was even a single information about the event, like host or stadiums, etc similar to 2034 World Cup but there is currently no update about this event. FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too soon. I have so many questions! Where will it be held? Who are in competition to host it and to compete in it? What month (June or July)? Who is the chairperson or host commissioner? What evidence is there? Bearian (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Irina Nikolaïevna Orlova

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

The article's significance is not shown. Only genealogical information. Besides, she is not a princess, as her ancestors were aristocrats on her mother's side. RobertVikman (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, France, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Consorts of nobility. I don't see any sources, although print sources might be helpful (ping me if you find any). I also see scandalous stuff (divorce, possibly a child outside of marriage), but we need sources. There's no allegation nor evidence of charity. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thalison Lanoa

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

Subject does not appear to meet the notability guidelines, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Sahaib (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as per nomination, and also for lack of significant coverage. A lot of the references are, from what I can see, not even about him. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Leskiw

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

Not seeing anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. Independent sources are lacking. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Ukraine, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find a person that did studies on radar in a Gscholar or Gsearch... Nothing for this person. Career doesn't seem terribly notable otherwise, and sourcing is primary. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically an obituary for an individual where there is no meaningful claim of notability or any of the in-depth references from reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to establish that claim. The article is effectively an orphan, with no links to the article that would show how the subject is integrated into the encyclopedia as a whole. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, page created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and speedy for its provably ahistorical nature. Even assuming that he became involved in politics in 1948, it was 12 years after James A. Farley who first pushed hyphenated Americans to form committees in 1932 to support the Democratic Party, followed in November 1947 by Clark Clifford, who famously wrote a 47 page memo, seven of those pages advising Truman to court various ethnic groups; see pages 11-17. The claim that this subject was the originator of a major political idea is verifiably false. Without that allegation of notability, there is no reason not to delete this speedily. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Star Jalsha#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Aari Kaal Bhaab

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. A WP:BEFORE shows unreliable sources, database, and streaming sites. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with entry of the title of the page under Star_Jalsha#Drama_series. Not opposed to Delete. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the series and no multiple reviews from reliable critics. RangersRus (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In general NP:FILM is not used for series but for TV or feature films. -Mushy Yank. 12:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star_Jalsha#Drama_series -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star_Jalsha#Drama_series, as it cannot have its own page due to poor sources. Aona1212 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C/o (Italy)

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

Article of dubious necessity, which misrepresents its topic as being much more unique to a single country than it is. Addressing mail to a recipient "c/o" somebody else is not at all a uniquely Italian thing, but is actually a pretty standard and relatively universal phenomenon common to nearly all postal systems worldwide -- and the article describes absolutely nothing uniquely Italian about it unless you count the specific address in Rome that it uses as an explicatory example, which isn't really a meaningful distinction. (I don't know enough about Rome to know whether that's a real address that real people actually live at or not, but it also raises privacy concerns if it is, and thus shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article for the same reasons why we don't allow articles to contain phone numbers or e-mail addresses either.)
As we don't appear to have an article about the general concept of c/o addressing (or at least not one at the title c/o, which is a redirect to a disambiguation page), I wouldn't be opposed to repurposing this into one if people feel that an article about it would be warranted -- but we don't need an article just about c/o addressing in Italy specifically, if there's nothing distinctively Italian about it compared to how the same thing works everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be moved to C/O (address) or Care of (address). And the address can be edited more virtual (more looks like fake) for example the address number can be changed to 15247 if the real address number is up to 152, or instead of Rome (Roma), we can use Rume or Ruma. Dollasdal (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that there is definitely no need for an article about c/o addressing in Italy specifically. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of an article about the general concept of c/o addressing either, but I couldn't find much out there about c/o addressing to merit an article without falling afoul of WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTGUIDE. MCE89 (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOR; most of this article is original research. There is no evidence that "c/o" is a uniquely Italian (or Swedish) postal abbreviation, and the fact that Italy uses an English-language abbreviation would suggest that it's not. Unless there is some kind of backstory yet to be unearthed, this can be handled with the brief mention it receives at CO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps make soft redirect to wikt:care of. older ≠ wiser 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pulp and paper industry in India

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

Not enough encyclopedic information or reference Greatder (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Afd is not for cleanup, and its current state is not a valid reason for deletion. It's a significant enough industry for sources to be findable, e.g. section 2 ("Indian Paper Industry") of "Opportunities for Green Chemistry Initiatives: Pulp and Paper Industry", "With a CAGR of 8%, country witnessing solid growth in pulp and paper". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend. A shame that the article is currently in such bad shape, but the industry definitely seems notable. It has industry publications [15], industry bodies [16] [17], and has received plenty of coverage as an industry in reliable sources - [18] [19] [20] [21] are a few examples. There are also tons of sources about the history of paper manufacturing in India [22] [23] [24] [25] and about the environmental impacts of the industry [26] [27] [28]. I don't think it would be too difficult to get this article looking much more like Pulp and paper industry in Indonesia, which seems to have a roughly similar level of available sourcing. MCE89 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MCE89. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Stevens (footballer, born 2000)

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

No indication of passing WP:GNG. All I found were transactional announcements (1) and match reports (2). JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, England, and Wales. JTtheOG (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a confusing search given the goalkeeper (born 1997) with the same name, who has definitely more coverage. However for the subject in question I also didn't find any sigcov. CNC (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As jack stevens born (2000) is also a player of decent coverage amongst national league fans. MoKhan123 (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to provide evidence of in-depth coverage? JTtheOG (talk) 09:58, 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)} 21:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. By the way, not all match reports follow the same news format. Although those are normally stories of the match as the name suggests, some of them may focus exclusively on a specific footballer and describes them in-depth. This one is such an example for the latter case, thus can be potential SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights

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

Not finding any other reliable sources discussing this organization. Was going to tag for A7 but there was a claim of significance in the history that it was the "only" pro-Palestine lobbying group. On the other hand, this has been tagged with notability issues and the topic has not garnered any serious attention in other reliable sources. In fact, I am finding zero reliable sources, only Weebly blogs and the like. Awesome Aasim 19:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Palestine, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Organization does not seem to have any online notability or coverage as highlighted in the nom, fails WP:SIGCOV. On the comment of being the "only pro-Palestine lobbying group" in the U.S., I don't think this is true. Other groups such as American Palestine Public Affairs Forum and American Task Force on Palestine have wiki-articles that establish greater notability, and there exist many formalized part-activist/part-lobbying groups in the country (i.e. Students for Justice in Palestine or Code Pink. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once a new article makes a verifiably false or made up in a day claim, by an editor who wants to allege notability falsely, that's the end of the discussion, at least for me. It's 2025, and everyone knows that Wikipedia deletes false articles in an effort to maintain at least some integrity. It's borderline vandalism. Bearian (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created Palestinian law, FWIW. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible when that claim was made it was true for the time, so it might have had some credibility. But now that isn't true anymore. Notability is something unrelated to the content of the article. Applying A7 and A9 in that light, it may pass, even though the topic is not notable. Awesome Aasim 03:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go as far to say that the claim was just made up and just that the original author was ill-informed. But I would express some scepticism on the idea that the claim "was true for the time" given that the American Task Force on Palestine was also founded in 2003 (same year as the American Association for Palestinian Equal Rights). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then, I agree this may not be a credible claim of significance. A7 for sure applies. Awesome Aasim 04:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ for everything but the 2010s and 2020s. There was something close to a consensus for even those two but rather than relist this whole thing for another week to figure that out I'm going to close those two as no consensus with no prejudice to someone immediately re-nominating them. I hope any closer of that hypothetical AfD takes into account the participants here who voted delete even after concerns about those two articles being different than the rest of the bundle. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1960s in history

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

Inherently a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the bare decade articles like 1960s (which themselves cover history), and the selection of what events to include is inherently WP:OR. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. These articles are absolutely and completely different from decade articles like 1960s, as the simplest inspection makes clear. the decade articles like 1960s cover topics like trends, entertainment, and pop culture for that decade. they do not cover history systematically; they often only mention some disjointed major events.

the history articles like 1960s in history cover history in depth. and furthermore, the more long-standing history decade articles, like 2020s in history, have been edited by lots of experienced editors. they have long-standing stability widely, in the community. Sm8900 (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sm8900 posted about this discussion on my talk page.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smasongarrison&diff=prev&oldid=1266688750, which seems like pretty blatant canvasing imho. ^SMason_Garrison 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i posted there mainly because you have edited this topic in the past. Sm8900 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this as I made one edit fixing a MOS:CURLY issue with JWB whilst making no substantial contributions to these articles. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 22:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur with this as I was canvassed to this discussion as well. I have made no substantial contributions to these articles, and any edit that I did make, I don't remember, and was very likely a minor edit. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
guys, with respect, it is not canvassing since canvassing is defined asCanvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. as per WP:CANVAS. all i did was post a totally neutral notification to you that the discussion was occuring. that's it. that is not canvassing, as per the guidelines on this. Sm8900 (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
trust me, thats the last time i will notify some wikignomes about a deletion discussion!! i had no idea anyone here actually minds being kept in the loop. in all seriousness, yes if you only did one or two minor edits to an article, then its understandable if you don't want to join a discussion. with that said, i was somewhat surprised to get such a strong reaction. however, i accept and acknowledge your concerns on this. i will be more mindful of this in the future. i do appreciate your helpful replies to address this. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was perfectly reasonable of you to believe that anyone who had editing the article may be an interested party in terms of a deletion request. To attempt to decide who may or may not be interested would be counter-productive. They'll cope! Neils51 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not "perfectly reasonable", there was absolutely no reason to think that I would be an interested party. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the only editors who should be notified of deletion discussions are editors who made major contributions to an article and/or the author of the article. Please don't notify me of any further deletion discussions. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My view on these articles is that they're simply not useful. If they were well-written, well-sourced, logical, relevant, thorough and did cover the topics that Sm8900 mentions above, then we might have something worth keeping. They are none of these things, and so REDUNDANTFORK does apply.

In many cases, they are thrown together from the opening paragraphs of multiple articles, which of course means that multiple sections often don't have any sources at all, because opening sections don't require sources. For example, the 1960s article has the following without any sources at all; Music, Egypt, Vietnam (a huge section), Czechoslovakia, Cuba (which is a copy of Fidel Castro, not Cuba, which is nonsense) and US Government.
Their sequencing often doesn't make sense - for example, the 1980s one opens with an "Economics" section which exclusively talks about the USA and then decides to talk about the rest of the world.
Some of the content is utterly irrelevant to that decade (for example the Castro example above). The Vietnam war section is copied into the 1970s article despite the fact that the Vietnam war was 1955-1975. The "Tanzania" section in the 1970s is Julius Nyerere's article copied verbatim - he lived from 1922 to 1999 - ditto Uganda (copied from Idi Amin).
Much content which should be there isn't. For example in the 1990s article, the section "Major changes in personal computers" is copied from Windows 95 - I mean clearly nothing else important happened to the PC in the 1990s, did it? The Brazil section in the same article is copied from Presidency of Collor de Mello, which lasted from 1990 to ... er ... 1992. Obviously nothing else happened in Brazil that decade.
They simply don't, in many cases,cover topics like trends, entertainment, and pop culture for that decade. - the 1990s one doesn't mention any of them.

I could go on, but these articles are non-useful - they're just random splodges of information copied and pasted from other articles, whether that information is useful, relevant, or indeed sourced. WP:TNT is relevant here. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
those are all valid points. i am totally open to major improvements. i would suggest gently some consideration of WP:BATHWATER. Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request split for AfD. [2nd main comment by this editor]. the articles 2020s in history and 2010s in history are totally different in construction from the others, so i respectfully suggest there should be a separate discussion for them. Sm8900 (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as redundant forks. 2020s in history and 2010s in history focus a bit more on politics than the others but that merely leads to redundancy with 2020s in politics and 2010s in politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
point of information, 2020s in politics is simply a redirect, to 2020s in history, as is the 2010s article also. Sm8900 (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Then moving 2020s in history and 2010s in history to 2020s in politics and 2010s in politics might be an option, with some rewriting. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete and merge with the respective decade articles or TNT per Black Kite. Consistent with Pppery's opinion, these articles seem like forks of each other as of the moment, with both articles inherently covering the same topic (if one covers the 2010s in a general perspective, that is a historical era and we are covering a historical era → history). These articles intrinsically have some sort of value in themselves theoretically (i.e.: 2020s would cover the topic more generally whereas 2020s in history would cover the historical aspects more in detail), but in the way that they are currently structured right now, without a major overhaul to how both articles are covered, the articles in question here should just be merged with their respective decade articles. — 3PPYB6 ^{(T / C / L)} — 22:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This history by decades series expands on the others. Worth mentioning that other ways 2020s timeline articles are sorted are by topic; by continent (2020s in European history), or others like Electoral history, Military history, Economic history, Environmental history, Science and technology history and Social history. It appears that 2020s in history may be used to summarise them. This discussion might also be premature as 2025 is only halfway through the decade. I also agree with Sm8900 that 2020s and 2010s are totally different from the others. Moondragon21 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020s in European history should be renamed to 2020s in Europe similar to 2022 in Europe. The others are examples of history by topic instead of history by decade, so unrelated to this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, however.... one problem with that is that 2020s in European history arose directly from 2020s in history. so yes, we can keep that european article, but then it should all be branched off by region, and then also the main decade article could/should be renamed to focus on political history as a topic in its own right. Sm8900 (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Rename 2020s in history to 2020s in political history, and also 2010s article. move other articles to draft space. would that be ok?Sm8900 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikiproject History. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, the decades are already in history. CMD (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than just transcluding excerpts of selected articles, perhaps consider writing up summaries of the decades based on academic sources, combined with narrowing the scope to something like "... in global affairs" or "global events"? I think a case could be made for such a set of articles. But this is not what we have here, so count this as delete. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Tree, Indiana

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

Baker actually describes this as a post office spot which moved, which is a classic 4th class PO thing. No, it doesn't mean that everyone pulled up stakes and moved; it just means that the original postmaster stopped handling the mail, and someone somewhere else took over. As usual I'm finding scant evidence for an actual town. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:15, 18 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!} 09:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A source in the article say:tiny community... with a post office and a few businesses, but it was never a thriving village. There does not seem to be much more detail except the presence of a tree, and the years. Without WP:SIGCOV on Google Scholar / Google Books / Google News, this should not stay. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To add on, I managed to find one article of SIGCOV at Newspapers.com written in 1958. To summarize: in 1958 there is only a store and empty house there. The storeowner at the area said that there was previously a tree next to a blacksmith store, but both were long gone by then. The tree may have been an oak. There were twice post offices at Lone Tree until they shut down. That's really not much content for a Wikipedia article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Updated my vote. We've found some sources but the content is not much. Also the sources are slightly contradictory, apparently the post office started in 1857 and the community was founded in 1860? starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The sources are almost to the point where I would prefer a redirect to Wright Township, Greene County, Indiana but not quite and I don't think there is any reason to wait at this point. If someone can find better sources they can recreate a redirect or article then. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Highly notable? no. But I think sources like what Starship.paint noted above -- "tiny community... with a post office and a few businesses, but it was never a thriving village" -- and the 1958 Indianapolis news article -- shows that it was once a small but known populated place in the early history of this rural midwestern US county. Not beyond debate, but that is usually enough to keep an article on a populated place.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Milowent: article is less than 100 words at the moment (I've updated it based on the SIGCOV I found). WP:SIZE says< 150 words ... If an article or list has remained this size for over two months, consider merging it with a related article. What do you think about a merge as Elichi404 said? I could implement that. starship.paint (talk / cont) 03:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think a merge to a township article in a situation like this one isn't the best for readers, its just a workaround to use a formally recognized entity that doesn't really have the unique identity that the smaller location has. I see you found more information below so we are doing well with making this article more useful.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GEOLAND. Starship.paint has identified that this was indeed a "community", which typically means there were people living there. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magnolia677: - could you clarify, when you say GEOLAND, are you saying this is one of the "Populated, legally recognized places", "Populated places without legal recognition", or "Disputed regions"? starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated, legally recognized places". Magnolia677 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - please explain how it is legally recognized? I don't want to assume. starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See [29]. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: - you provided a link to the "Geographic Names Information System". WP:GEOLAND says thatThe Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation. The USGS says regarding GNIS at question 19: Populated Place represents a named community with a permanent human population, usually not incorporated and with no legal boundaries, ranging from rural clustered buildings to large cities and every size in between. The boundaries of most communities classified as Populated Place are subjective and cannot be determined ... Incorporated populated places (those with legally defined boundaries) have two records in GNIS: a Civil feature and a Populated Place feature ... Most communities are not legally incorporated and therefore will have only one entry, which will be classified as Populated Place. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I located a bit more about Lone Tree:

Lone Tree was located along Old Terre Haute Road, a pioneer wagon route between Louisville, Kentucky, and Terre Haute, Indiana. The author writes "in early times the names of New Albany, Salem, Wood's Ferry, Smith's Ferry, Black Swamp, Scaffold Prairie, Lone Tree, Splung Creek and Terre Haute were all very familiar household words."
Not the most reliable source, but one contributor here said she grew up across the street from the store in the photo.
This random entry in a 1959 book entitled Motor Vehicle Theft as a Federal Crime: A Study of 400 Offenders, states "Carle was born in Lone Tree, Indiana, on January 16, 1918." --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first point is usable as actual content. I have added it into the article, which is now 112 words (within 150 where merge is suggested) and less than 700 characters (far less than the 1500 that DYK requires for new articles). starship.paint (talk / cont) 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being born someplace, and living in that place, all contribute to the notion that this was a real place with real people living there. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum size requirement for articles, so long as the information is varifyable and the subject is notable. AFD's like this often hinge on whether the place was ever populated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GEOLAND, populated places without legal recognition have no presumption of notability. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GEOLAND as a recognized community with several businesses and a post office at one time. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Editorofthewiki: - recognised by who? WP:GEOLAND's presumption of notability hinges on being legally recognised. starship.paint (talk / cont) 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to HDFC Bank. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HDFC securities

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HDFC Bank. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - not independently notable of its holding company. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Administrative divisions of the Maldives#Seven Provinces. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upper North Province, Maldives

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

The article lacks notability and only has one source. The main text of the article seems to be copy pasted across the below mentioned articles. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am also nominating the following related pages due to the above mentioned reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Administrative divisions of the Maldives#Seven Provinces. Duplicative standalone articles that don't really say anything are not needed. Reywas92^Talk 01:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all without prejudice to re-creation if someone wants to put more work into any of these, as these were official government historical areas. SportingFlyer T·C 01:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Also a first level administrative division. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are no longer first level administrative divisions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter - the fact they were makes them eligible, but the problem there is there's simply nothing to say about them at this current moment. SportingFlyer T·C 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't temporary - there are thousands articles for former provinces, counties, districts, municipalities etc. WP:GEOLAND applies to any populated place, not just administrative divisions. The fact that these places were first level administrative divisions is an additional reason to keep the articles. Obi2canibe (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect all as above. There is apparently no need to say anything about these individually, and yes, if people think that GEOLAND means we have to keep these stubs, then that's another argument for getting rid of it, because it's clear that a subdivision of only a few years lifetime is only marginally notable as a whole, much less of its parts. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't ignore guidelines just because some people don't like it. If you want to get rid of WP:GEOLAND, start a discussion and get consensus. Don't try to get your way through the back door by individually nominating articles for deletion. I see this far too often at AfD and CfD. Obi2canibe (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rayah Kitule

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

There is no mention in any source about this person, like at all. The article was PROD'ed but it was denied FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was a BLP prod (twice) not a prod. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any sourcing about this person; only social media shows up. Blog posts used as sourcing don't help the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all I found were mirrors and social media that have not been updated in years. Does not meet ANYBIO or GNG. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALT. It's 2025, and everyone on the globe knows that we are not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luso–Danish expedition to North America

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

Actual meat of the article is covered in Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. Other than that, this article appears to mostly be presenting a fringe theory as fact at face value. "Ancient explorers" nonsense for the bulk of it. Only not nominating for a speedy delete as I'm worried it may pass some reviewer's very quick smell check. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Denmark, Portugal, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warren, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I want to clarify that I did not reference myself on the Didrik Pining page during my research. Instead, I gathered information from multiple independent sources, as you can see in my article.

I also based myself on four theories, not to focus exclusively on Sofus Larsen’s claims. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every single google result for "Luso–Danish expedition to North America" links to your edits here, which coupled with the lack of evidence for the figures involved and the lack of acceptance of the theory probably means an entire article dedicated to it is unwarranted. It's possible some of your research could expand Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America to be more comprehensive, though (making sure not to present fringe theories as competing with the mainstream)? I don't know enough about this topic to be certain. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, for starters, I’m basing these theories on books, not websites. Merging the article with the one on Didrik Pining doesn’t seem like the right approach since he wasn’t the only voyager involved. I believe it’s better to maintain a main article focused on the expedition rather than combining it with a biography.

Regarding your statement about "presenting a fringe theory as fact at face value", I have labeled the information as "theories" and marked the date section as "debated." I made it clear that I’m presenting various interpretations, not facts. I also believe that the strongly debated part of the expedition is how far did these voyages reach and the date, not the voyagers involved. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe that the strongly debated part of the expedition is how far did these voyages reach and the date, not the voyagers involved.

Except that the voyage happened in the first place appears pretty widely rejected by contemporary scholarship. WP:PARITY presents a problem here in taking the topic too seriously for its own article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that while the details of the expedition are indeed debated, the possibility of the expedition itself is not dismissed by all scholars. To prove this I analyzed the book ("The German Discovery of America": A Review of the Controversy over Pining's 1473 Voyage of Exploration) by Thomas L. Hughes.

As stated in the text, "the arguments have been complicated by controversies surrounding the indispensable participation of Pining's presumed Portuguese colleague, Joao Vaz Corte-Real, as well as the more dispensable supposed navigator, Johannes Scolvus." (p.509) This shows that while there is debate about who was involved, there is still room for the possibility of the expedition occurring.

Moreover, it is noted that “Cumulative circumstantial evidence, bolstered by some circular reasoning, led Larsen to his central proposition" (p.509) which supports the idea that there is some scholarly backing for the expedition.

I believe this should be shown in the article, especially as it presents a historical theory supported by multiple sources, even though some elements remain debated, like the exact route or the date. Other historians are mentioned in the text, for example Kirsten Seaver, who disagrees on João Vaz's participation, but agrees on the possibility of an expedition by Pining and Pothorst. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that while the details of the expedition are indeed debated, the possibility of the expedition itself is not dismissed by all scholars

With the full context this is textbook WP:FRINGE:

We shouldn’t be presenting an extreme minority position in the scholarship, especially one which exists in an extremely common realm for fringe theories as early contacts with the Americas does, as valid unless there’s either a compelling reason to believe it’s of significant benefit to Wikipedia to cover it (such as a major and popular fringe theory). We definitely shouldn’t be presenting three fringe takes and scholarly consensus with equal weight in an article dedicated to a topic that is almost unheard of and, likely, didn’t actually exist. Without that it reads more than a little like trying to “teach the controversy”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address your points.

"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."

I’d say that the sources cited are reliable. You can look into the academic backgrounds of Thomas L. Hughes, Kirsten Seaver, and Sofus Larsen, all of whom have credible scholarly reputations. If you believe the sources used in the article are not reliable, it would make more sense to replace them rather than deleting the page entirely or merging with one’s biography.

Additionally, I’ve already clarified that scholars do not widely reject the existence of this expedition. The strongly debated points are about the details. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a fringe theory, falling outside the mainstream, using a term you invented for Wikipedia as the article name. There's always going to be WP:PARITY issues in creating an entire article about filling in the gaps of history with what some conjecture may have resulted in happening. You've done this here and with Portuguese Newfoundland, both of which do not represent the scholarly mainstream of history or the history of those regions, and WP:PARITY will always be a problem. I understand you believe these expeditions happened, but seeing as the scholarly mainstream doe not seem to accept that these voyages have any details fillalbe if they happeed at all, they do not warrant an article here, let alone one which presents extreme scholarly minority opinions as co-equal with the actual historical consensus. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already addressed the concern about the fringe theory. You can verify the reliability of the sources by checking their academic background. As I mentioned in my previous comment, you are welcome to replace any sources you believe are unreliable.

Regarding your claim that I "invented a term for Wikipedia", the title comes from the book Ancient Explorers of America by Aleck Loker, which states, "a record in the Danish archives makes reference to the joint Portuguese-Danish expedition" (p. 160), and The Portuguese Columbus by Barreto, which notes, "it could only have been on the Luso-Danish expedition" (p. 151). Just to make things clear, I also created a redirect for the article titled Pining expedition, which is also explicitly mentioned within the article. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not everything is covered in Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. I also believe the article makes it very clear that it's a theory and not an established fact. Javext (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make it clear it’s widely rejected and considered a fringe theory, though. We have significant WP:PARITY issues. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right actually. Perhaps it's best to keep the article but reform it (including the title) Javext (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the title is pov, asserting this took place. I note that the creator is very fond of the fringe book "Ancient explorers of America which relates as fact that various groups, eg Chinese {see Fu Sang#The Americas}, Solomon etc. visited America. The book by Barareto is also useless with terrible reviews, et [30] and [31] It might be possible to merge some material with Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note we already have Portuguese expeditions to North America created by the same account. I've cleaned it up a bit. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the arguments from here are paralleled at the AFD for Portuguese Newfoundland, which is basically a fringe fork.

Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You completely ignored my comment without providing a proper response. In my opinion, the only drastic change that should be made is perhaps the title of the page to include the word "Theory", I’ve already addressed your claims about it being a "fringe theory".

I still don’t believe merging this page with a biography is a good idea. If you disagree, look at pages such as "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia". While it is not a widely accepted theory, it still has its own page. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete the this flat out fringe, the Davies source used in the article flat out calls it '[a] concocted [...] outrageous thesis' and that there is no evidance to support it something that mindbogglingly isn't in the article—blindlynx 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t believe Davies' criticism of Larsen's work as an "outrageous thesis" is sufficient to classify this as a fringe theory. Criticism of a single interpretation does not invalidate the thesis, especially when other reputable scholars (that I've already mentioned in my discussion with Warren), like Thomas L. Hughes in The German Discovery of America, acknowledge that Larsen’s conclusions are based on cumulative circumstantial evidence.
Hughes notes that "The Larsen thesis was further bolstered by the fact that both Pining and Corte-Real, soon after their alleged voyage, became strategically placed governors in mid-Atlantic outposts."
Most of what I’m telling you has already been addressed in my previous discussion with Warren. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is fringe because it over emphasizes the precious little evidence there was for this expedition and flat out ignores that this thin evidence is not taken as definitive by the sources.
A quick summary: The Hughes paper make no definitive claims of the expedition having have happened one way or another; Davies categorically denies it did; Diffie and company point out there is no evidence for it and state that Ernesto do Canto and Henry Harrisse reject it completely; Loker cites Larsen and a later map, which in turn Vigneras calls 'probably the result of later exploration'. Did i miss anything because none of that is good enough to parent anything more than a mention in the Pining article and certainly not enough to warrant it's own article—blindlynx 21:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Hughes' book, the theory is not considered as fringe. The verdicts are described as "not proven", which some interpret as "not disproven" or "maybe yes, maybe no." While Diffie and the others acknowledge the lack of evidence, Loker clearly explains how Larsen arrived at his conclusions. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fringe part is that this article in no way reflects the sources—blindlynx 15:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents both sides, with scholars who support the theory and those who reject it, that doesn’t make it fringe. I already suggested improvement too. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The article states the expedition happened as fact, which continues to be fringe—blindlynx 16:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending rewrite. Separate articles on fringe views are generally considered fine given two prerequisites: A) There must be a substantial basis of sources. That seems halfway okay to me here. The multiple book sources show a variety of coverage from the pro-fringe side - what is missing is the general criticism that is presented at Didrik Pining#Alleged trip to America. Taken together, these two appear to show that there is enough coverage here for an article. B) It must be made clear what the mainstream take on the topic is. The article wildly fails in this respect. You have to read halfway down before you might get the notion that this does not represent the accepted historic record; because the critical mainstream sources have been omitted, and because the lede brazenly states it as a an uncontroversial fact. This needs to be fixed. But given that it can be fixed, because the material is there, I don't see why we can't have an article on the topic. Our Category:Pseudohistory is extensive. - The novel coinage in the title seems debatable and should probably be avoided. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree that deleting the article or merging it with a biography isn’t the right approach. As I’ve previously mentioned, articles like the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia" exist despite being widely disputed, it shows that speculative theories with sufficient scholarly discussion can warrant their own articles.
I also support improving the article by maybe replacing weaker sources with those that have a more known academic background and by reconsidering the title to clarify the thesis. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may need to read WP:BLUDGEON:
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m just trying to make my points clear. You might want to take a look at my reply to your statement, which you haven’t responded to yet. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources appear to be WP:PROFRINGE and the article is, as a result, an in-universe apologia for a fringe theory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is not pro-fringe. I’ve already addressed these concerns above and made it clear that this is presented as just a theory. I’ve already suggested improvements to the article. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that having an article you worked on taken to AfD can be frustrating but WP:BLUDGEONing the conversation will not actually help you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you this isn’t an attempt to dominate the conversation. I’m simply presenting my viewpoint. It seems that most are against the article, and I’m offering my perspective because many may not have read my previous discussion with user Warren. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More than one third of all posts at this AfD, Jaozinhoanaozinho, are from you. You have posted your opinions multiple times here, those opinions are perfectly clear, and you have been warned about WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion by two different editors. It is now time (past time, actually) for you to stop responding here and to let this AfD run its course. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (maybe Draftify. Maybe). This article will only be suitable for enWP when, and if, the specific topic receives notable and sustained coverage/treatment in additional reliable, independent, secondary sources; i.e., sources that are not credulously pro-fringe. Those sources seem to be absent or non-existent, and so the article fails WP:N. Even then, the article will require substantial editing to remove the pro-fringe content presented in Wiki voice. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The earliest recorded mention of John Scolvus is a 1537 inscription on Gemma Frisius' globe. A label on the phantom island Groclant [32] reads, "Quij populi ad quos Ioés Scoluus danus peruenit circa annum 1476", or "These are the people reached by John Scolvus a Dane about the year 1476". The most common explanation for Grocland is that it is one of the many various forms that Greenland took on early maps when the area was less understood. As the sources cited in John Scolvus say, we know little about Scolvus,[33] and, "Nothing is known of his personal life." Our article is hesistant to even call him a real person, and the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador says the area that Frisius attributed to Scolvus' voyage "was Greenland".
And so, in this Wikipedia article, we have a person that we know nothing about, being credited for leading an international voyage to Bacalao which is a phantom island with an etymology indicating that it was reported by fisherman rather than an international voyage, based on his association with Groclant, another phantom island. One keep !vote says that this trip was "possible" which yes, if we can't pin down any aspect of Scolvus' life then a whole lot is possible, but should we have an article on a topic if reliable sources don't speak for its existence in reality (WP:REDFLAG)? We have articles on subjects we know to be false or mythical (Cynocephaly, Antillia, etc.) but to change this article's scope from "a voyage" to "theories about a voyage" is such a large change that I'm struggling to see how much of the article could be kept. If the original author wants to continue working from the point the article is at now, I'm not opposed to draftify it but do think that's kind of setting them up to run back into the same problems going forward, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danis Zubairov

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

Has played 9 minutes in the second tier of Russia but with no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. The only non-database source that I could find was this, which is a trivial mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability considering how many minutes he has played so far. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G5 (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Uddin

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

Repeatedly declined at draft but moved to mainspace anyway. I cannot find any evidence that Arif Uddin meets WP:GNG or WP:NMUSICIAN. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No indication of importance and not notable. Frost 15:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's annoying because the creator keeps moving the article to Wikipedia space, which would invalidate an A7. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dookie. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnout (Green Day song)

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this song, WP:NSONGS is not met. There are a few mentions in sources about its album, Dookie, but insufficient to establish notability. Frost 15:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - depending on the outcome of this, we may also need to look at Having a Blast Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - If we cannot find many sources on this topic, we should redirect this article to the album page. Z. Patterson (talk) 16:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album - failure to meet NSONGS. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirectnot much sources Thenewave (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) (removed original redirect to create article packed with copyvios, sock-blocked. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to the album, Not much sources. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Was heavily copyvioed (now removed) and there was no reason this needed its own article now. Nate • (chatter) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Accusations of WP:COI appear to be justified, leaving us with minimal legitimate participation, and no P&G-based consensus after three weeks. Promotional tone and content can be pared down editorially, even if this leaves the page as a stub. Owen× ☎ 09:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.I.M.U.N.

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

The Wikipedia page for IIMUN (India's International Movement to Unite Nations) does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as outlined in the General Notability Guidelines (GNG). While the organization claims widespread activity and recognition, the sources cited are primarily self-published or lack significant, reliable secondary coverage in independent publications. The majority of the references either originate from IIMUN itself, social media posts, or promotional material, which are insufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the achievements mentioned, such as organizing large-scale conferences and initiatives like "Find a Bed," fail to receive substantial and consistent coverage from reputable third-party sources over a significant period. Without verifiable, independent, and non-trivial coverage, the subject cannot be deemed notable under Wikipedia's policies. Therefore, the article does not merit inclusion and should be considered for deletion. Likehumansdo (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2024 (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/2024 December 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 09:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Education, India, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom should have done the review just like their username Likehumansdo. This is a clear keep, it easily passes GNG, and I can't find any reason for deletion. It seems like the rationale was pulled out of thin air, almost like asking, "Generate a reason to delete this article?".--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes, moreover your whole comment is 100% AI generated without actually going through the sources. Can you point out any specific source which is not credible? IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. Ihsaan45 (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IIMUN clearly passes CNG, it is a clearly prominent organisation with enough credibility on the internet. Rjain1998 (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think the nomination looks AI-generated. The page looks somewhat fluffy. I took you up on your challenge and sampled one source I looked at, "Billabong School: Bringing Change with Students' Holistic Development". September 2018. Retrieved 2020-02-29., and it looks completely useless. The source is not very reliable and is not relevant for what it is supposed to back up in the article. Geschichte (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG. Ihsaan45 (talk)
~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete: because it is promotional and lacks credible, verifiable citations. Charlie (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: As mentioned above: The I.I.M.U.N. page passes GNG, the sources are credible. Find a Bed is covered by Forbes. IIMUN upon a single Google Search comes up in reputable non-promotional news, articles and mention in various books. Your comment falls short of appreciation, moreover, when independent users like us have to keep Wikipedia alive and running. As mentioned already, the sources seem to be in line with the content written. Hence, my take is to keep the page as it only mentions the credibility of the organization while also following the GNG.Ihsaan45 (talk)

~~Ihsaan45 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep:: This organisation has articles from sources such as forbes and vogue, DNA, Times of India so should keep Rjain1998 (talk)

Rjain1998 (talk) 09:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been found to be turning a redirected page into a page about IIMUN's founder, potentially indicating a case of article hijacking. Charlie (talk) 13:39, 24 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!} 09:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have run a thorough check of the resources listed, and have found that two sources lead to dead links, owing to the dated nature of the original webpages/websites. While I am in the processing of editing it, I would like to point out that multiple sources have been provided to justify the sentences stated, and most of them are from extremely credible news channels/publication houses in India, including 'Times of India', 'DNA', 'Free Press Journal', 'India Today', 'Forbes India' and more. Request you to take their authenticity into consideration. Rjain1998 (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjain1998 To begin with, your lack of understanding of Wikipedia notability guidelines, as shown in your statements on this AfD and your editing history of turning a redirect page into IIMUN's founder page, shows a conflict of interest. I also suspect that you and another user, @Ihsaan45, are trying to manipulate the voting here because that user attempted to undo the removal of repeated votes. I don't like to accuse anyone unfairly, but the actions of these two accounts in the AfD leave me no choice. Charlie (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Spasojević

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

Played one top flight season in Serbia before disappearing into the lower divisions. No evidence of WP:GNG. The best that I can find is this futsal blog post, which may or may not even be the same person. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:FOOTYN criteria. QEnigma talk 12:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm having trouble finding relevant sources because "Marko Spasojević" is a common Serbian name. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nenad Milunović

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

Whilst he did have 2 Super League appearances, he spent most of his career as an amateur and there is no sign of significant coverage for WP:GNG. I found Aleksinac, which looks to be the best source, but it's basically just a quote from him and nothing more. Sources like this and this show that he does still continue to play, albeit at a very low level and with no in-depth coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of significant coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Maldivian Engineers

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability of this association and no public information about it. Closest thing available was the "Association of Civil Engineers Maldives" Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is the closest thing to a RS I could find [34], which isn't enough. The last AfD was kept as a !keep due to mentions/profiles on two association websites, which isn't quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing anything qualifying this for an WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory J. Blotnick

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

It's unclear to me why this man's fraud conviction makes him notable. There were many people who committed PPP fraud and while large, his is not the largest or most well reported. I see a smattering of reporting, of the routine kind of reporting you usually see that is rewritten SEC or DOJ press releases.

Furthermore, I don't see how he is notable for his finance activities prior to his conviction.

This article seems to promote the man in a strange kind of way. I am concerned about the potential COI nature of this articles creation as well, because the Wikidata item for this page/person, Gregory Blotnick (Q131440997) is being actively edited by wikidata:User:Gregory J. Blotnick so shortly after creation. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and Finance. William Graham ^talk 05:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wish that fraud and misprision, my two least favorite crimes, were crimes that would automatically make a perpetrator notable, but that has not been consensus since 2007. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it can be edited to remove some sources and info but after seeing sources such as, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, www.justice.gov, Dealbreaker, which are already cited on Wikipedia for multiple notable entities, the page can be kept. It also passes general criteria of notability as per WP:GNG. I can help editing. NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article gained full notoriety, as it is an important case with a properly licensed work. It is not a template. It appears to comply with WP:GNG. so keep. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 05:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:BOLD strikeout as a suspected sockpuppet of Alon9393. Geschichte (talk) 08:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about him in reliable sources like Bloomberg, Newsweek, Miami Herald, NJ and National Law Review.Kwftnlf (talk) 05:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Firecat93 (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. While his case is covered in reliable sources, they mostly seem to be somewhat routine, nothing to me that really stands out. Quite a few sources are out there reporting on it, but I'm not sure if the content is enough for a keep. Procyon117 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One count of wire fraud and one count of money laundering are minor crimes. Multiple counts on each would make more him more notable. He's not the FTX guy with multiple charges against him, this isn't Enron... Oaktree b (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of criminal charges someone gets has nothing to do with notability. There are people convicted on dozens of counts who aren't notable and people notable with one or two charges. Ynsfial (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of this so-called “notability” is really just sensationalized coverage of the individual’s criminal activity. I agree with the nominator and Oaktree b that this page should not remain on Wikipedia.50.39.138.50 (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject's references include multiple reliable secondary sources such as The Palm Beach Post, Bloomberg, New York Post, and Business Insider. Additionally, the subject has been featured in Newsweek, Miami Herald, Daily Voice, and Mel Magazine. Aona1212 (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He meets notability guidelines due to significant coverage in reliable sources, including Bloomberg, The Palm Beach Post, Business Insider, Miami Herald and other mainstream news sources. Blotnick’s $6.8 million PPP fraud case is one of the largest individual cases reported, making it noteworthy in the context of COVID pandemic related financial crimes. While the article might need some editing for neutrality and removal of unsourced content, his career and legal cases have received enough coverage for him to be considered notable. Moopaz (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the NPP reviewer on this article, I thought it marginally crossed the line of WP:CRIMINAL under the following criterion:The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. PPP fraud is a significant topic that has gathered a lot of media attention, and this is someone who was already in the news (even if not independently notable). The coverage also persisted beyond the immediate aftermath of his sentencing (see, for example, this piece in the National Law Review and in-depth coverage in the Miami Herald) in addition to the contemporaneous coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Maldives Post. If another article would be a more appropriate merge target, that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unique house names in Maldives

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

No references since 2016, not notable. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 04:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - on the one hand, I don't like the title or the unencyclopedic tone WP:NOTESSAY of the writing. On the other hand, this does appear to be a Thing. It might be a challenge to find notable sources, but it does depend if we collectively think it is worth doing here or better to WP:TNT and get whoever recreates it to ensure there is proper sourcing. I'm doubting it is really possible for anyone outside of the Maldives to offer sources that meet the WP:GNG. JMWt (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my research, I couldn't find any reliable sources for this in the Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 20:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As you say, it does seem to be a Thing, and thus notable. As a comment, it used to be very common in the UK for house names to be the only addresses on envelopes. For example, my grandmother's address used to be just Catalone, Newton Abbot, South Devon. However, for obvious reasons the Post Office tried to eradicate this approach to addresses, and it has largely disappeared, except for people who live in castles or palaces. I expect the same practice existed in other countries, and probably still does in some. Athel cb (talk) 14:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant. The requirement of the GNG is coverage in reliable sources. Even if houses were named in England, that doesn't mean that a list of house names in England would be notable. Even if it was, that doesn't mean house names in another country are also notable. JMWt (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Maldives Post, where it would fit thematically. Not every Thing needs its own article. ---Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested or to another appropriate target, such as Culture of Maldives. It's actually verifiably false that only in Maldives are houses named and so postal services are difficult. Besides the examples cited above, every house in Cherry Grove, New York has a unique name, and the name often changes depending upon the new owner's interests, e.g., The Doll House and Manila Manila, and there is no delivery of mail or packages to those individual homes; one must go to the post office. For the record, "Being a Thing" is not the same as "notable." Bearian (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tendency (party politics)

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

Fails WP:DICDEF and, as a disambiguation page, WP:PARTIAL. Geschichte (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tendencies have an important role for Trotskyites in particular that goes beyond dictionary definitions. If there are ways to improve the article so that it stops meeting WP:DICDEF then let me know. JASpencer (talk) 06:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the entry now consists of exactly one sentence and no sources. Multiple paragraphs with multiple sources, that's no longer a dictionary definition. Geschichte (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a disambiguation page per WP:PTM. Currently not suitable as an article if it's only WP:OR. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand in the spirit of WP:DABCONGOV. There are two interwiki links, and fr:Droit de tendance looks promosing. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Tendencies serve as formalized factions influencing party dynamics, distinguishing it from a mere dictionary definition WP:DICDEF. A bit of TLC can bring it up to speed. --Snowycats (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entry is a pure DICDEF. Geschichte (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand the point of the nomination. We have dabs of dabs. We have definitions on dab pages. I'm lost. Bearian (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not a partial title match? Geschichte (talk) 22:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Public Health Association

AfDs for this article:

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

It is unclear whether it's a for-profit or non-profit organisation. Either way, it fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and West Bengal. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Nom that none of the sources I got satisfy CORPDEPTH. Also, it looks like a non-profit. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly find any significant coverage. Not meeting WP:NCORP. B-Factor (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nom has withdrawn (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Flame (film)

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

Article fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. I found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a review from Variety. Needs one more suitable and reliable review per NFO and WP:NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the Variety review, there are also reviews here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in light of the sources identified during this discussion. Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 02:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I speedy withdraw this nomination due to the recently improved updates on the page. The Film Creator (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walks on ordinals

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

This does not look ready for article space, but a user has declined draftification. Putting it up to the community to make a decision. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be G5 speedy deletion. Created by a long-blocked sockpuppeteer known for excessive promotion of the main author cited here, Stevo Todorcevic. G5 does apply because the draft was created in 2018 and the main account of the sockpuppeteer was indef-blocked in early 2017. The editor who insisted on promoting to article space is unrelated to the sockpuppeteer but perhaps unaware of this history since they were using the fact that the creator was inactive (because they were blocked) as a reason to insist on this incomplete draft being moved to article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK, although at redirect to Countryman line is also available. 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Sorry: Bearian (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Tinsdale

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

Hull City U21 player, yet to make debut for a senior team. I only found WP:ROUTINE coverage[35] and passing mention,[36] no indiciation of WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Suggest ~~Draftify~~ or Delete until notability is established. CNC (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Football. CNC (talk) 12:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CNC (talk) 12:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kanpur Bolshevik Conspiracy Case. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Gupta

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

Sources are not reliable and SIGCOV, fails to meet GNG and also fails WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 12:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. GrabUp - Talk 12:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe redirecting to Kanpur Bolshevik Conspiracy Case is a good option per WP:ATD.GrabUp - Talk 12:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Lacks notability Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage, although a redirect as suggested is possible. I am not a member of the Communist Party, nor have I ever been a member. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Yadav (politician, born 1998)

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

Sources are passing mentions and do not provide in-depth coverage of the subject, hence failing GNG. Additionally, the person is not an MP/MLA, thus failing WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 12:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. GrabUp - Talk 12:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician. RangersRus (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:TOOSOON, and NPOL. Despite the use of weasel words and phrases that imply that the subject is important, this was an unsuccessful political candidate at the state level and is a plaintiff. We have literally deleted thousands of articles and pages of unsuccessful political candidates. We are not a web site for anyone to advocate for political or personal agendas. The Indian judiciary is notoriously slow in coming to decisions. At 26 years old, it's far too early for us to make any reasonable predictions about the likelihood of this person's future success, either at the ballot box or in court. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian Grand Slam tennis champions

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

I don't think that this WP:CROSSCAT is notable. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the phenomenon of Canadians winning Grand Slam tennis tournaments has received WP:SIGCOV or that these tennis players have been covered significantly as a group in WP:RS. "List of [x nationality] Grand Slam tennis champions" is not inherently notable. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Tennis, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draft. Even if this was notable, in what way is this empty article with red links even helpful? Gonnym (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page should not be deleted since it has information with reliable sources, it is well structured and it is not the only one of its kind.

In addition, this page is concentrating in one place information that would be spread across other Wikipedia pages, which makes searching for it longer than it should be

Link to the another Wikipedia article of this kind: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_de_tenistas_brasileiros_campe%C3%B5es_de_torneios_do_Grand_Slam

Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a similar article exists in Portuguese Wikipedia should not be used as a reason for keeping this one. Doing so would be circular reasoning. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haddad Maia fan (talk)

Furthermore, the page provides a comprehensive overview of Canadian tennis players who have secured Grand Slam titles across various categories, including professional singles and doubles, as well as junior competitions. This compilation highlights Canada’s achievements in the tennis world, showcasing players like Bianca Andreescu, who won the US Open women’s singles title in 2019, and Gabriela Dabrowski, a multiple Grand Slam champion in doubles and mixed doubles.

The page is well-structured, categorizing achievements by tournament type and player gender, which facilitates easy navigation and understanding. It also includes references to credible sources, enhancing its reliability.

Given the significance of these accomplishments in Canadian sports history, this page serves as a valuable resource for those interested in the nation’s contributions to tennis. It not only celebrates individual athletes but also reflects the growth and development of tennis in Canada.

In conclusion, the “List of Canadian Grand Slam tennis champions” Wikipedia page is a pertinent and informative entry that merits its place on the platform. It offers valuable insights into Canada’s tennis milestones and serves as a useful reference for enthusiasts and researchers alike and that is why it should be maintained. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This response looks like it was written by ChatGPT. Per WP:SOAPBOX, Wikipedia's job is not to showcase, highlight or celebrate anything. We should only have articles on topics that are already covered in reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. Where is your example of multiple reliable sources discussing these Canadian tennis players as a group? All I can see is a synthesis of different news articles, created by you, on different Grand Slam wins by different Canadian players but not a single source linking them together. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that all (or at least a vast majority) of this user's edits are AI written. They have already been warned of this once on their user page. And quite a few of their tennis articles that I had recently PRODed also seem to be written by AI. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know we can't forbid the use of AI on Wikipedia but it should be discouraged where possible. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Taking "keep" to its logical conclusion, there should be a Wikipedia article like this for every country that has had a tennis grand slam winner: List of American Grand Slam tennis champions, List of Botwwanan Grand Slam tennis champions, List of Danish Grand Slam tennis champions. It's a nationalistic but not a notable topic. Ira Leviton (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As has been stated if there is an article for Canadian Grand Slam tennis champions then there has to be one for every country and that is wholly unnecessary particularly with tennis being an individual sport.
Shrug02 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amirhossein Rezaeian

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

Can't be deleted via WP:A7 due to publishing a book but I don't see a pass of WP:NAUTHOR. Searches in Persian (امیرحسین رضائیان) don't yield any significant coverage in WP:RS. Being a masters student in engineering and speaking three languages doesn't make him inherently notable. This is also up for deletion in fa.wiki. A WP:SNOW delete would be an ideal outcome. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Engineering, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Couldn't find any SIGCOV and I can't find anything about their book, so seems highly unlikely that they could meet WP:NAUTHOR. Seems to have done some cool projects, but nothing out of the ordinary for a Master's student in electrical engineering and nothing that could count towards notability. MCE89 (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The mere act of publishing a book in Iran does not confer fame or notability. This individual has not demonstrated any substantial contributions that would warrant a Wikipedia entry. It’s important to note that articles related to this person have been created and deleted multiple times on Persian Wikipedia: fa:امیرحسین رضائیان, fa:Amirhossein Rezaeian, and fa:امیر حسین رضائیان (the latter is currently under a speedy deletion request). --NameGame (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 15:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Forces Insurance

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

I did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Military, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 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!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NCORP. The sources provided are primary (afi.org) ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure to pass WP:NCORP. Sources are non-independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elifenur Karabulut

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

Turkish female footballer. A WP:BEFORE search only reveals database entries and nothing in depth to establish notability. John B123 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Turkey. John B123 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find is this, which looks AI generated and doesn't contain any WP:SIGCOV in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found no coverage, hence no sources. If sigcov is found please also ping me. CNC (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:FOOTYN) criteria. No sources provided in the article. User generated articles available online. No content to WP:V. QEnigma talk 12:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY doesn't exist anymore, and user-generated sites should never be used as sources on Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources were found on the internet to satisfy GNG (only). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 06:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Sintsov

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Stomakhina

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything significant about her.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboveCanary757 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oliwia Rzepiel

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three sentences of coverage at [[37]], while [[38]] is WP:SIGCOV but appears to lack independence. The corresponding Polish article also has no secondary sources, and without better sourcing the WP:GNG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Let's run. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talisa Thomalla

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV found on search.Canary757 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Junior skater with no significant coverage.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Soupian

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and almost entirely sourced from one website OrebroVi (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator. There are many fine figure skaters in Israel. Very few of these are notable by Wikipedian standards. The article can be redirected to Israeli Figure Skating Championships, but only after her medal year is added to the tables. Please read the last condition carefully and let it sink! gidonb (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability and significant coverage standards.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaïs Coraducci

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one sentence here and there in Swiss press was all that I found. Failing GNG.Canary757 (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmood Alam

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

Fails WP:NPOL, failed to win the election. Also, no SIGCOV coverage found so fails GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination; also, I don't see any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Cecilia Allen D'Mello

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

Fails WP:NPOL and sources are not SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local representative of a larger city is not considered notable per NPOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of 227 city councilors of a suburb, the subject fails NPOL. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nawa Raj Subba

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nawa Raj Subba

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

Not meeting WP:BLP. Not a single in depth coverage of the subject in any neutral source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Authors, Poetry, and Nepal. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: There has been no independent news media coverage or reliable sources about this person since the article was created in 2009 and salted in 2017. Subject does not pass GNG or NBIO Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. He has published stuff buy nobody seems to have cited it. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NBIO. Salt, based on repeated attempts to create the article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage. It's very difficult for an independent scholar to pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arina Cherniavskaia

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The best I could find were brief mentions like [[39]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeritaSatu World

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

No findable references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indonesia. UtherSRG (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit confused about how this article relates to BTV (Indonesian TV channel). The Indonesian language Wikipedia article id:IDTV suggests that BeritaSatu World was the name of the channel from 2014-2023 and that the name of the channel is now BTV (or maybe IDTV according to the infobox?), which would suggest that the two English language Wikipedia articles are probably redundant and are just talking about two names for the same channel. But the two English language Wikipedia articles BeritaSatu World and BTV (Indonesian TV channel) are full of contradictory information. The article BTV (Indonesian TV channel) says that the channel is now called BTV, that it was formerly called BeritaSatu, and that IDTV is its sister channel. Meanwhile BeritaSatu World says that the name of the channel is currently BeritaSatu TV (BTV?) and that it was formerly called both BeritaSatu World and IDTV, while BTV is its sister channel. A Google search didn't shed much additional light, so I'm left quite confused about the timeline here and how all these different channel renamings and acquisitions relate to one another. I'm pretty sure I support deleting BeritaSatu World (and maybe add BeritaSatu Sports to the nomination?) because at least BTV (Indonesian TV channel) has some sourcing and I think that's probably(?) the name that the channel goes by now. But hopefully someone with better Indonesian than mine can help work out what's going on here. Alternatively, maybe merge all three channel articles into a new article for the parent company B Universe? MCE89 (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nevermind, and apologies for the lengthy comment. Turns out I was mostly wrong and that the articles on both projects are a bit misleading. It seems like BeritaSatu World was a sub-channel of the wider BeritaSatu broadcasting operation until it stopped broadcasting in 2022. While the article describes the subject as "BeritaSatu TV (formerly BeritaSatu World and IDTV)", the three seem to be entirely separate and I don't think coverage of the other channels can be counted towards notability. Regardless, BeritaSatu TV is confusingly not the same thing as either BTV or the wider BeritaSatu TV arm, and is probably not notable either. So agree that BeritaSatu World pretty convincingly fails WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 09:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Despite the horrible walls of text, the "delete" !votes have the stronger arguments. Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional monarchy

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

Traditional monarchy, as a distinct system of governance, ideology or political affiliation is not widely used enough to be considered WP:NOTE. There was obviously a lot of work put into this article, and I can sympathise with how awful it must feel to see it nominated for deletion. However, this topic has a lot of redundancy and little notability as a distinct subject.

A lot of the alleged traditional monarchists in this article never use the label. Charles A. Coulombe has 0 mentions outside of Wikipedia of being a traditional monarchist. Coulombe is both a traditionalist and a monarchist, but he never uses the term traditional monarchist. Even Rafael Gambra Ciudad, who has the most extensive mentions of Monarquía tradicional, has zero sources describing him as a traditional monarchist (that I can find). Several of the quotes throughout this article discuss monarchism but do not mention traditionalism. The label of a traditional monarchist is also frequently applied to movements that do not describe themselves as traditional monarchists. A lot of the connections to traditional monarchism seem to be made by the editor, rather than the sources.

A brief survey of the academia on traditional monarchy shows that it is rarely mentioned and when it is it is not described as a distinct ideology from traditionalism or monarchism but a combination of both. This leads to many of the sources used by this article not mentioning the term traditional monarchy.

I am aware that this article relies on a lot of Spanish sources, something I'm by no means fluent in, so I could have totally missed something big. However, even with Google Translate and searching basic Spanish terms, almost nothing comes up.

At the end of the day, this article reads more like an article about monarchism and would have substantially fewer issues if it were.}} Clubspike2 (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2024 (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/2024 December 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the article's content has been added by one user, Sr L, since 24 November. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have been the most interested in develop the article, there were others that preceded me and even are equivalent of this articles in other wikipedias. Sr L (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I feel that it is very picky to focus on a largely nominal and terminological issue to propose deleting the page. For those, I think it would be better to rename the article as "Integral Monarchy" (used in Tsarist circles), "Corporate Monarchy" (used in Habsburg loyalist circles), "Classical Monarchy" (used in some academic circles), "Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism" (which could be the most formalist possible name for Wikipedia), etc. of alternative names that exist for this type of monarchy that the article describes according to what various legitimist and counterrevolutionary groups, that are anti-liberal and anti-absolutist alike, adhere to.

Secondly, I must mention that the concept of "Traditional Monarchy", according to the definition that it adheres to on a corporate and aristocratic form of government according to medieval political philosophy or "scholasticism" (such as the Thomistic philosophy of law and Augustinian political theology in the Christian context, which also develop Aristotelian and Platonic political philosophy, which in turn its followers admit to having conclusions similar or equal to those of other traditional philosophies that are grouped as "non-modernist" such as Confucianism or Vedism), allows that naturally the Iberian concept of "Traditional Monarchy" can also refer to such forms of monarchical government that maintain similar qualities in reaction to the Political Modernization initiated by the Secular Humanism of the Renaissance and consolidated with the Age of Enlightenment, which is what all these "classical reactionary" groups have in common, which have brotherly relations with the Carlist and Integrist groups, which are the ones that most allege the concept (despite that even italian, french and polish monarchical groups uses the concept and I referenced some of those). There is even an entire philosophical school that defends this specific form of "pre-modern Monarchy" according to the characteristics of a perennial tradition (Perennialist School, although they are obviously not the only defenders of this type of government and in any case they have an emphasis on questions of mysticism and metaphysics rather than politics)

Finally, it can be empirically verified, after reviewing the sources of the article (specifically looking for the statutes and declaration of principles of the monarchical groups mentioned), that all these groups that perceive themselves as "authentic reactionaries" come to defend a form of government that is essentially common, despite the specific name they give it. There is even a book called "The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera)" that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups [Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, French Legitimist Royalism, British Jacobitism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, Catholic Integralism] along with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. From this we can conclude that all these legitimist groups, which have historically collaborated with each other (like the White Russian movement associating with the Carlists in anti-communist alliances during the interwar period, the Polish monarchists of the magazine Rojalisci-pro Patria having integrists in their ranks and basing themselves on Carlism, the intellectual collaborations between the legitimists of the houses of Bourbon and Habsburg-Lorraine, etc.) consider themselves to defend what the Iberian traditionalists understand as "Traditional Monarchy" and which perhaps other traditionalisms or "classical conservatives" names in a different way. Which, again, would be a more nominal and terminological question (which could be resolved by renaming the article, although I personally would not suggest it), not a proof of the insubstantiality or inaccuracy of the article. Sr L (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While renaming the article would solve some issues, I believe that it does not fix the notability of this concept. When searching on both Google and Google Scholar, the terms Integral Monarchy, Corporate Monarchy, Traditional Monarchy, Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism and Classical Monarchy are either scarcely used or scarcely used in the way this article uses the term. These ideologies may all have common beliefs and roots, but without a widely recognized term grouping these ideologies together this bars on being original research.

My main concern is not that the groups categorized under Monarchy according to Classical Reactionism, or any synonymous terms, are not related but that the notion of categorizing them this way is not notable enough to be its own article. Clubspike2 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is mostly a problem of Anglo-Saxon academical community that just don't have the same interest on this topyc unlike Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian or Polish academical communities (in which for me have been more easy to get sources on this topyc, even someones that consideres British Jacobitism as part of the movements that supports this model of government). Since the essence of this questions are about the method of making connections to categorize this in what is understanded as "Traditional Monarchy", I think that the problem is the necessity of wanting pure academic papers that say something about traditional morality or leaders specifically saying so outside of Carlism and Integralism, which yes they are (like Jacek Bartycel on Poland or Marquis de la Tour du Pin in France, along the influence of Francisco Elias de Tejada on Italian monarchical organisations like Editoriale Il Giglio), but in Anglo-Saxon community are very few outside of marginal circles like Jacobitean or Traditionalist Catholicism. But being demostrated that there are shared principles and fundaments that determinates their common model of Monarchy, I think that staying in something terminological would ignore the essential, perhaps it is because it has been see all these movements in the same way anyone would see an ideology, instead of seeing them as a particular Social Doctrine of Monarchy. The problem would be the necesity to see a system and a creator who gives it a name and people influenced by that creator citing his work, instead of seeing it as a series of principles shared by classical reactionaries' conception of Monarchy as based on a Perennial Tradition outside of ideological formulas (that's why the article should mantain it's name in my opinion, due to being reivindicated mostly by Traditionalist circles that tries to distinguish themself of other Monarchisms). Although, if I would consider a referent that inspire the rest, it should be Thomas Aquinas Iusnaturalism, as all of those movements that defends this "Traditional Monarchy" are inspired (if not totally based) by his proposal of Monarchy in De regno, ad regem Cypri, all of the academical authors that mentions this model of government are Thomists or are sympathisers to his political contributions (like Perennialists). Sr L (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this by seeing this edit, which is adding a bunch of text referenced to a glaringly unreliable source, some NGO that promotes some oddball fringe views. If this is the standard for the rest of the text, then yes, it should absolutely be deleted because this is a policy violation. --Joy (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that the policy violation is about Wikipedia:Fringe theories. While it is true that the defense of the Traditional Monarchy is currently a marginal position, this is not sufficient reason to delete the article, since the reasons why Wikipedia avoids giving articles to marginal things is if the object of the marginal is due to having little academic support or no historical impact, but the defense of the "Traditional Monarchy" model (understood as a corporate, traditionalist, decentralized, religious and anti-modernist form of government) has been a very relevant real historical phenomenon, which in some countries such as Spain, Portugal, France and Italy are a relevant case study on the historiography of revolution and counterrevolution.
  And specifically the Traditional Monarchy model, has support from serious and recognized academic authors cited in the article, such as Juan Vazquez de Mella, António Sardinha, Francisco Elias de Tejada (influential in Italy), Miguel Ayuso Torres, Rafael Gambra Ciudad, Jacek Bartycel (Polish), the Marquis de la Tour du Pin (French), etc. which haved a common understandment of a Christian or Perennial Social Order based in this type of Monarchy that isn't Constitutional nor Absolutist, trying to be an alternative superation of Feudalism.
  It cannot be placed in that category as could be the case, for example, of anarcho-national bolshevism (a political ideology that exists but with no systematization and no serious references in the academic world). By this logic there shouldn't be articles talking about anarcho-capitalism (and it's derivations) or fascism (and their movements), which are currently marginal positions. Sr L (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the idea is not that we don't cover complex topics at all, the idea is that we observe the WP:Verifiability policy while doing so. Blogs are not reliable sources. --Joy (talk) 06:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are sources that aren't just blogs, books that can be searched on Google Academy (although are more easy to get them on spanish, portuguese, french, italian or polish than in english). And the use of blogs related to official institutions can be tolerated by WP:Verifiability policy if "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals", and those blogs are administrated by carlists academics that can be verificated in the official page of Traditionalist Communion (2001). However, even in case those blogs are rejected, that doesn't meant that the article in his totallity isn't a valid one, due to having a serious academical fundament from Classic Reactionary thinkers and movements (which have a serious historical impact in some countries, like Spain or Portugal). Sr L (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like most such hobby horses, it's a curious and overwhelmingly excessive mix of original research and synthesis. I'm not going through this entire thing, and one thing must suffice, for now: this source, a page on WordPress that claims to cover the genesis of the "modern state" in a couple paragraphs, and it is used to verify (pardon me for the long quotes): and Note how careless the editing and how argumentative the writing is in those paragraphs, sweeping through history with the broadest possible brush. This is how we get 300k of excessive (and excessively overlinked, another hallmark of such writing) and overformatted (another hallmark) writing. No, burn it. This is an essay. It is possible that somewhere in here is a concept worth noting, but even the lead doesn't make that clear. Delete. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was considering, after looking at the history, to advocate a return to this version, but that is also problematic, because both versions take this concept to be something specific to the Iberian situation, and a quick search through JSTOR shows that this is unwarranted: the term "traditional monarchy" is simply a word to denote traditional monarchy, nor does anything in the definition by António Sardinha cited in the earlier version point at something specific, except maybe for the word "Catholic". Drmies (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- About António Sardinha, here's a portuguese source about his definition of "Traditional Monarchy" (specially from page 6) and mentioning analogies with the political theories of Joseph de Maistre, René de La Tour du Pin and Russian Whites https://www5.pucsp.br/cedic/semui/colecoes/colecao-acao-imperial-patrionovista/aipb-02/AIPB0017-compactado_2.pdf. Another one from University of Wrocław that it's in English and mentions this "Organic, Traditional Monarchy" on Portuguese Academic community from Right-wing circles. https://repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/dlibra/publication/146401/edition/136530/catholic-and-monarchist-nationalism-in-twentieth-century-portugal-bartyzel-jacek-orcid-0000-0003-1193-8515 This one in Spanish also mentions a comparative annalysis with his "Traditional Monarchy" and what carlist believes it's Traditional Monarchy (and also mentioning a more specific concept of "Traditionalist Monarchy", although with reserves of use due to wanting avoid ideologism). https://fundacioneliasdetejada.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/FYR23-P-57-67.pdf
  The 3 have in common that, while Traditional Monarchy as a model has been better developed by Iberian theorists of Counter-revolution traditionalism (and Sardinha being one if it's greatest a referent, along Juan Vazquez de Mella on Spian), it isn't exclusive of Iberian traditionalism, as there has been an accademic exchange with Legitimists and Maurrassisme of French reactionary community (and also of like most of royalist movements), that also have contributions to the concept and also used it in their context to support the restoration of a "True Repressantitve" Monarchy based in Estates of the realm Corporative representation instead of modern Parliamentarism (and rejecting also Absolutist centralisation at late Ancien régime). And then can be infered that this concept exists by it's own property, although can be mantained by renaming the article as just "Monarquia Tradicional", mantaining Spanish/Portuguese original name, in case Anglo-Saxon Community has terminological problems about this model of monarchical government. Sr L (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, and it seems a few other Wikipedians, find the issue with "traditional monarchy" isn't validity but instead whether notable sources use the term in the same way this article does. The category might be a valid and sound idea but Wikipedia is about notable ideas not valid ones. Without a reliable source telling us what traditional monarchy is and then identifying other ideologies, individuals or movements as "traditional monarchist", this article is clearly representing a fringe theory.
    The sources provided in the article and this article fail to fulfill this requirement. António Sardinha's work mentions traditional monarchy scarcely, and does spend anytime defining the term. The Wroclaw text uses it to describe a movements characteristics, instead of as a categorical label. Miguel Ayuso only uses the term when describing the formula for Vázquez de Mella's idea of a monarchy, instead of as a category or movement. Similar to what @Asqueladd said, a lot of synthesis is required to find any sort of continuity among these sources. They may talk about similar ideas and even use similar words, but they should tell us that they are connected. It is not Wikipedia's job to connect these dots, the sources should do that for us. If traditional monarchy was a notable idea, it should be easy to find sources that discuss its use clearly and various definitions. These sources do not. Clubspike2 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there's a book called The Legitimist Counterrevolution (Joaquim Veríssimo Serrão and Alfonso Bullón de Mendoza and Gómez de Valugera) that talks about the common aspects between these monarchist groups [Spanish Carlism, Portuguese Miguelism, French Legitimist Royalism, British Jacobitism, Italian Neo-Bourbonism, Catholic Integralism] with the common monarchical form of government that they propose according to common principles, even having the collaboration of several intellectual authorities of all the movements mentioned. It's the most near to fullfy that requeriment, although the focus of this book is mostly about history of these groups (and the common fights they have had against Political modernization) rather than a book of political philosophy or political sciences, but still offers insights into their common ideological foundations and political activities. However those five groups have always perceived themselves as defenders of a common type of monarchy, and even the current traditionalist communion of the Carlist pretender Don Sixto de Borbon has branches in Italy and Portugal-Brazil, as well as the legitimist groups related to Louis XX of France and Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria have a history of using that same term "monarchie traditionnelle" or "monarchia tradizionale" .
      There are books like the french one Henry V (duc de Bordeaux, comte de Chambord) ou la monarchie traditionnelle française à l'épreuve de la modernité post-révolutionnaire (1820-1872) or the italian one La legittimità di esercizio, fondamento dello Stato tradizionale which talks about this common aspects of a Traditional Monarchy that rejects the Modernization theory and emphasizes governance rooted in historical legitimacy, religious orthodoxy, and regional autonomy through a King commited to protect traditional social hierarchies, opposed to centralized state power in favour of a corporative representation against both absolutism and parlamentarism, and the preservation of regional laws and local customs of the peoples. If the problem is mostly about cathegorizing as supporters of "Tradiitional Monarchy" some Non-Catholic Monarchist or Reactionary monarchist movements not influenced directly by Iberian traditionalism (unlike the French, Italian and Polish ones), then that's why I propposed to that specific part of the article to be translated into a new page when is solved first the one of definition and fundaments (which in my opinion has been already resolved when I added a new paragraph and subtitle about Definition and Fundaments according to their academical referents, although I can accept corrections), so being borrowed that specific parts of supporters if the problem is there, not deleting all page which refers to a substantial and existent model of government with valid reason to be here due to it's historical impact. Sr L (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- About this source (page on WordPress), it's from an official Carlist institution, the Circulo Hispalense (now Circulo Elias de Tejada), which is an extension of actual Traditionalist Communion (2001) and can be verified in their official page: https://carlismo.es/presentacion-en-sevilla-del-circulo-hispalense-de-la-comunion-tradicionalista/. So, it can be considered a reliable source as it's related to an academical institution which officially defends this model of "Traditional Monarchy", and being the article about explaining that model. The same institution has made collaboration with other "Anti-Liberal" Monarchist movements, and that's a big consideration about why this "Traditional Monarchy" is the same Monarchical model of government defended by reactionary movements with similar "Counter-Revolution" political philosophy (like jacobites, french legitimists, miguelists, habsburg loyalists, white tsarists, etc) against Constitutional Monarchy and Absolute Monarchy at the same time.
  While my intention wasn't arguing, just expressing the official fundaments of the "Traditional Monarchy", I'm not against to eliminate those paragraphs if they're syntethised in a more accurate way for Wikipedia standard. Although, about that conclussions about Westphalian system as catalyst of Absolutist Monarchies, those aren't exclussive of Traditionalist Monarchists thinkers but are a greater historiographical debate among Academy and have been supported by non-related authors like André de Muralt (but due to not being this article just about historical science, but mainly political science, I avoided to mention the other perspectives and mantaining the focus on the fundaments of Traditional Monarchy, so just mentioning the historiographical perspective that it's assumed by these academics about why Traditional Monarchy is different of Absolutist Monarchy or Modern Sovereign state). So, again, you can change the redaction if that's the problem (or at least giving an advice cartel to correct it in the near future), not borrowing all the page.
  Also I was considering, about resolving the issue concerning the excessive amount of sources, to create another article about "Movements that defends Traditional Monarchy per country", as most of those sources are related to the part of "Supporters of Traditional Monarchy". Sr L (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - That it's connected to some institution doesn't make it a reliable source. I've indicated briefly why I think it's problematic, and I could go on--I'll do that if it ever comes up on WP:RSN or a talk page discussion, where I'll argue that citing Aquinas in a page like that is a bad sign, not a good one. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, doesn't make it *necessarly* a reliable source, but can be if some conditions are done (as I tried to just quote blogs in which there are official authorities and academics from this monarchical circles, not a random guy who is fan of this type of monarchy without guarantee of objectivity).
    However, if the problem is specifically the sources from blog, then erase them and only the sources that are purely books by academic authors remain (such as Francisco Elías de Tejada, from whom the author of this blog is inspired to summarize that analysis of the Modern State) and analysis of books by said academic authors that come from non-blog portals such as Dialnet, Jstor or others (as this are the most majoritarian sources before the part of "Supporters of Traditional Monarchy") Sr L (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an essay full of original research, underpinned by shoddy sources and heavy synthesis conveying a set of fringe views also relying on extrapolating from Spanish traditionalist voices to elsewhere on feeble grounds. Whatever has been going on in the monarchist camps in terms of innovations of their political philosophy in recent times, it should be dealt with in monarchism, paying attention to due attribution and weight, instead of this essay that looks as if someone wanted to sell tradcaths an ethereal mode of state structure.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "full of original research" the sources are there about the principles of Traditional Monarchy according to serious authors in academy from Carlist, Miguelists, French Legitimists, Catholic Integralist (Thomist), etc of reactionary circles, which during XIX and Early XX Century were very relevant historically (like the Spanish Civil Wars). So their actual condition of being marginal views can't be a justification of being a case of a fringe theory. Sr L (talk) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that such a distinction given to a "traditional monarchy" is valid, although the article has several editorial errors and things that should be improved to avoid more confusion, but it should be understood that the traditional monarchy does not refer to a system or schematization of a type of government, if it is not a term that seeks to encompass monarchies that were governed by certain principles shared by the medieval era, as mentioned above, based on the political form of Thomism and political Augustinianism, all those monarchies that in their proper context sought more or less to replicate or be governed by such principles fall into the term of traditional monarchy, if one seeks information on such movements cited in the article it is normal that not define themselves as a traditional monarchy, but they do identify with the principles presented, so it seems useful to me to have an article that encompasses such monarchies that Until the modern age they sought to materialize such principles. Moongrief (talk) 00:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" Moongrief (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think the article could be improved in several aspects, the traditional monarchy can be a valid concept if we consider what I already explained in my initial comment, this explains why these monarchies in practice have had differences, since each one is adapted to the situation of each place where it happened, but we can see a fairly unified idea of its fundamental political principles, which were the Thomist-Augustinian philosophy, which was presented as a continuation of Platonic-Aristotelian philosophy in the Christian context, perceived as an eternal truth.
It seems to me a nominal problem, to criticize it because such monarchies have not seen themselves with the name of "traditional monarchies" of course that such a name was given later but the distinctive principles are there, although not as a system Moongrief (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear a few more assessments of this article. I typically ask for a source analysis at this point but with 284 footnotes, that's not a realistic ask. I will say, User:Sr L, you have made your opinion known (though without stating a bolded vote) so please do not continue to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion and respond to every comment that is made. That approach almost always backfires. And if there is a sensible ATD, like a Merge, Redirect or Rename solution, please bring that up soon. This discussion can be closed at any point that a closer sees a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — weak — I don't deny that this article has issues with prose. Broadly, it simply reads like an essay and — despite it seemingly being well-sourced — I am sure I am seeing some WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. That said, I feel it is important to note that this is a term that is again — seemingly — utilized primarily in Spain and Portugal, or at least in the Hispanophone world. So, right there, is a possible issue; It doesn't fully-clarify this in the lead. Secondly, definitely some WP:SIZE and definitely some WP:CANYOUREADTHIS issues. Additionally, I'm not sure the title is correct, despite it being a literal translation from Spanish: monarquía tradicional or Portuguese: monarquia tradicional. A more appropriate semantic translation might possibly be "traditionalist monarchism" or even "conservative monarchism," though I'm getting a bit WP:OR-ish with the latter. Anyways, before I get myself into CANYOUREADTHIS-territory, I'd just like to say I believe this article can be salvaged. I am also willing to work on it myself. That said, Clubspike2, if nothing changes in the coming months, I would give you strong support for a deletion.MWFwiki (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting the Keep position. I'm also a supporter of the idea that in the last case it is better to change the name of the article + correct the wording as a better intervention (I think I went too far in explaining the reasons for these authors, which creates a misunderstanding of trying to be an argumentative article). There's too much information that can't be lost due to errors that can be corrected just by a better redaction or solving first a therminological issue.
Althoguh I don't think that this concept is primarly on Iberian world, as I've seen that they use it directly on French, Italian and Polish sources as well as in their official monarchical groups (about this, it's also used on Anglophone community, but on marginal Jacobites and Traditional catholics groups, and so on in marginal reactionary groups influenced by the "Counter-Revolutionary School" like the Habsburg loyalists or White Russians circles). However I can agree that Iberian monarchical theorist have been the ones who most developed the concept.
I'm very sure that in case is problematical "Traditional Monarchy", then "Traditionalist Monarchism" can be a better replacement, as all this groups have in common a series of principles from classical Counter-revolution/Reactionary movement (like Traditionalist conservatism on Anglo-World), although with variations in praxis according to their particular regional context (as a consequence of the regionalist principle they defend, Universalism through Particular). However the only problem I would find with that name is the danger that what is actually an aticle describing a system and model of government that developed a doctrine a posteriori, becomes an article on ideology in the modern and apriorist abstract sense that all these groups reject due to using schemes of medieval and classical philosophy. This could generate misunderstandings for future editors of the article unless some clarification is made at the beginning of the article renamed in that name. Sr L (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that, despite the problems regarding terminology and sources, the article deserves to be kept.

The idea of a sacred monarchy based on a cosmology that is expressed in the West especially in medieval Christianity, is defended by authors outside the iberian monarchist tradition. For example, the perennialist tradition such as Rene Guenon ("Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power") or Jean Hani ("Sacred Royalty") expose the common principles behind the traditional monarchies of the West, as opposed to the absolutist monarchies of Protestant influence: subordination of temporal power to spiritual authority, caste system (priests, warriors, workers), morality based on natural law, decentralized administration.

Julius Evola's political theory can also be included in this category, although he disagreed on the supremacy of spiritual authority, he was later corrected by the Spanish monarchist Elías de Tejada. Tomidcm (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomidcm, this is your first and only edit. How did you find your way to this AFD discussion? Did you hear about it from another source? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as to retention or otherwise, however it seems excessively long, uses excessive linking and capitalization and can be hard to read and understand. Many tenets of the style manual seem not to have been considered. Neils51 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 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!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[40] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[41] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[42] is not independent
[43] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[44] is a copy of a press release
[45] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[46] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[47] copy of a press release
[48] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[49] Summary of a press release
[50] Summary of a press release
[51] Summary of a press release
[52] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing⁺⁺15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Chapman

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

Sources currently cited consist of IMDb and some YouTube channels published by the subject. Searching the name alone turns up unrelated individuals; with some other specifying material added, some promotional material from an agency turns up, but nothing which would indicate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:COI! At best WP:TOOSOON, but clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per nom and above, but also noting the incorrectly disclosed COI. Snowycats (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources provided and fail WP:NACTOR. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and author requested speedy deletion. ‎. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 18:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gilbertson (climber)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Much of notability stems from that one event about Mt. Rainier height matter and there's not been much coverage beyond the immediate time periods following the matter, failing WP:20YT and since further coverage on this hasn't really developed, it's WP:TOOSOON. For other things, it's not quite at GNG meeting level.

The article was successfully deleted with unanimous consensus only two months ago. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC) And due to that, with salt please. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Washington. Graywalls (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this through the academics and educators deletion sorting list but as an assistant teaching professor at Seattle University [53] with only one well-cited publication [54] he definitely does not pass WP:PROF. Any notability is going to have to rest on his mountaineering and mountain metrology efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given my conflict of interest, I won't weigh in on the matter. I'll instead ping other users who were involved in the AfC process, including @DJ Cane, @Cabrils, and @Theroadislong. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When I saw the AfC Draft was accepted into the mainspace, I got a little too excited and treated editing this article like any other article on Wikipedia. With that said, given the COI, I knew not to do any content-related edits unless proposed through the talk page, so I did quick edits that I believed to be permissible per COI uncontroversial edits, including adding categories and a grammatical fix. The impulsive edit was the removal of the multiple issues template which I acknowledge was a controversial/disruptive edit given my COI and inherent bias. I apologize for that edit and will not make the same mistake in the future, in making impulsive/disruptive edits that aren't clearly permitted in the COI uncontroversial edits section. If you need more information about my COI, please see the article talk page. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification would be appreciated on the bizarre coincidence (noted here [55]) whereby KnowledgeIsPower and an account calling itself 'Eric Gilbertson' both began posting on the Mount Rainier talk page promoting the same pro-Gilbertson agenda within days of each other.
WP:SOCKPUPPETRY or WP:MEATPUPPETRY is clearly indicated, especially as the Gilbertson account appears to have been created solely to make those posts.
Your disclosure on COI clearly does not adequately cover the links between yourself and Gilbertson. Axad12 (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping @Axad12: as they were involved in the previous AfD. Graywalls (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. no pass of WP:Prof and nobility from WP:GNG not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: This article was accepted through the AfC process. Beyond the BLP1E that the nominator mentioned, did you consider the sources such as Nat Geo Poland, The Times of London, Süddeutsche Journal, Tages-Anzeiger Journal, American Alpine Club. If he didn't pass WP:GNG, the article wouldn't have gotten through AfC. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep seeing "this article was accepted through the AfC process" used as a reason for keeping an article. It is not a reason. All it means is that some reviewer thought this article might survive a deletion discussion. But now we get to find out if they were correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry, I was that reviewer and you are correct, I thought only that it might survive a deletion discussion, I could be wrong, I have no strong opinion either way. Theroadislong (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: After thinking it over a little, if the general consensus comes to the conclusion Gilbertson isn't notable, how about a merge/redirect into Highpointing? Just like Ginge Fullen was the first individual to reach the highest points of each European country, Gilbertson was the first to reach the highest point in each Stan and North American country and is therefore important to the sport of highpointing (and in my opinion has the enough media coverage to warrant a mention there). I'm not saying merge this whole article into highpointing, just the bits important to the sport.

In my opinion, however, if Ginge Fullen can get a Wikipedia article, I think Gilbertson should also. This AfD should be viewed from the lens of Gilbertson's climbing/highpointing/surveying media coverage, since from the academic perspective I agree he's non-notable. Obviously my COI gives me a bias in favor of Gilbertson, but figured I'd throw this idea out there. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a suggestion. Why don't you stop using Wikipedia as a platform to promote Gilbertson? This edit [56] which you made recently, removing multiple tags from the Gilbertson article, was a disgrace for a user with almost 3,000 edits - especially one who has previously been brought to COIN [57] and had been pointed to WP:COI. The edit is absolutely typical of the work of bad faith conflicted users such as yourself (as was the timing of the edit).

I also suggest that you stop trying to interfere with this AfD and instead allow non-conflicted users to decide what should happen to this article.

If you have a problem with the article for Ginge Fullen (or any other article) then nominate it to AfD as well. If one article can be located which doesn't comply with GNG then that isn't an argument for the further creation of non-notable articles. Instead it is an argument for the article which doesn't comply with GNG to be deleted. Axad12 (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt. The subject clearly does not satisfy WP:GNG. The article is the creation of a user who seems intent on promoting Gilbertson and thus salting seems the only way to prevent further re-creation. Axad12 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I participated in the original AfD as well as the AfC. Since I was directly pinged here, I figured I ought to say something. I'm on the fence about whether or not Gilbertson is notable at this time and will refrain from voting. That said, I feel the creator of the article has been making positive steps to correct problematic editing and feel that there is some dogpiling going on here that is counter productive. If kept, this article needs further trimming to decrease the dominance of primary sources and sources derived from primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Cane (talk • contribs)

In what sense is pointing out the issues with the user's editingcounter productive? Earlier today the user has voluntarily agreed to stop editing around the subject of Gilbertson, which is clearly a positive outcome all round. If you prefer to allow COI editing, meatpuppetry, etc., to continue without comment (including at COIN, where you made a very similar comment) then I'm afraid I cannot agree. You only have to look at the resolution to the discussions at the user's talk page and my own talk page to see the entirely positive and amicable outcome here. Axad12 (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ Cane:, Have you not seen them making another attempt at inserting borderline run of the mill person Eric Gilbertson into very high view count, indisputably highly important and notable articles such as the country of Uzbekistan and Mt. Rainier ? Also, the draft they submitted just a few weeks ago was full of unacceptable WP:QS primary sources and self published material which they should've known better by now to not use as source. This hints towards just an attempt to re-submit as close to the original version as possible. Graywalls (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I said I am moving on from this, just wanted to clarify the above.

For the record, I will state my reasoning for adding Gilbertson-related content to the articles you mentioned was so that his article wasn't an orphan. I (wrongly) figured it would be permissible to attribute the survey to him if his article was in the mainspace. In drafting the current article I did my best to reduce fluff, but I recognize that the natural bias arising from my COI reduces my standard of editing in both instances.

As I stated to @Axad12, I will no longer edit anything Gilbertson-related nor insert any Gilbertson-related content anywhere else in the encyclopedia. However, per @Graywalls suggestion here, I may submit one COI edit request to the highpointing article pertaining to a mention of Gilbertson. If it is declined by a neutral editor, then I won't do repeat COI edit requests.

Axad12, I know you suggested to me here that I don't do any COI edit requests (and I initially agreed), but I feel one COI edit request is a reasonable, non-disruptive way to get a neutral editor to decide if Gilbertson-related content belongs on a non-BLP article. Cheers! KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I have been involved with the draft page and multiple discussions with the author on my Talk page. I am of the view that the page is WP:TOOSOON. The serious COI is concerning. Cabrils (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Cindy Beale. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who Attacked Cindy?

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article consists almost entirely of an incredibly lengthy plot summary and contains original research. It is also very off-topic throughout, given how unfocused several headings are (The "Storyline creation and development" section contains almost no information about such, instead focusing on unnecessary announcements and events preceding it, and the "Reception" section shows few reactions to the storyline as a whole, with ref 13 particularly being about a different topic entirely). FishLoveHam (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise how the sources are insufficient given the topic:

[1] Not related to the storyline itself, just background surrounding the central character.
[2] Just backing up that she was key in that story, again, unrelated to the article's subject. Additionally, the claim that the character was made central to storylines is technically original research.
[3]-[6] see [2], an overview of the central character's storylines is not needed, and it almost seems as if it was only included to pad out the article.
[7] Correct, but not relevant.
[8] "Producers decided to incorporate Cindy into the show's 40th anniversary storyline when it became clear how pivotal the character had become" - original research.
[9] see [2]
[10]-[12] Okay reception, but all can be found in the Episode 7037/7038 article.
[13] Misleading, as the statement is correct, but the article is not about the storyline as it was published before the initial attack was aired.

FishLoveHam (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several amendments to the article; as a result, the references in your piece will of course no longer be relevant to the article in its current form. Regardless, I have clarified and defended them in this response, whilst also illustrating the amendments I have made.

[1] Cindy is pivotal to the storyline; hence, some background information is helpful

[2] I accept this and have removed it from the article.

[3-6] Amended to highlight how these storylines built into "Who Attacked Cindy?"

[8] This has now been amended

[9] Amended by removing the original research

[10-12] We could expand by transferring the reception from Episode 7037/7038; reception to the Christmas Day 2009 episode is included on the Who Killed Archie? storyline.

[13] This has now been removed based on your critiques. Filer390 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

Filer390 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background information can be helpful, but in this case it reads more as clutter. You're correct about Cindy being pivotal to the storyline, but the article isn't about her. While this story could have been in the pipeline during her reintroduction, George affair, etc. There isn't proof of such, so it can't be considered part of the storyline's creation/development. Also, about "Who Killed Archie?", the 2009 Christmas episode doesn't have its own article, and the "Who Killed Archie?" article doesn't solely consist of information about the episode the character is killed/attacked, like in this article. On a case-by-case basis, it isn't okay here. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think you seem to realise that not everything that happens on the show needs a Wikipedia article; "Who Killed Archie?" and "Who Killed Lucy Beale?" were HUGE, and comparatively dwarf this particular storyline in terms of scale and media coverage. Again, I'd like to reiterate that this storyline COULD become notable in the future, but the current state of this article demonstrates that it isn't. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain or Merge with Episode 7037/7038. I agree that as it stands, the article has too much original research (and not enough citations), but those are grounds for it needing improvement, not removal. HarashoEli (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the redirect or merge with Episode 7037/7038. This is a fandom.wiki level of detail. Kazamzam (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard soap plot this time of year and very much of a OR 'type what I see' recap we've long discouraged with a bizarre narrative writing style that seems inspired by true crime, not a fictional series. There are also a lack of real-world impact sources and too many BBC/Radio Times stories considered not as disqualified PR as they should be, but as serious sources when that's far from the case. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a standard soap plot as it has been promoted as part of the show's 40th anniversary storyline in sources which the article cites. Similar to how previous anniversary storylines like Who Killed Archie? and Who Killed Lucy Beale? have articles due to their significance to the show's history.
Having read more of this discussion, I now accept that the storyline section should be subject to judicious editing.
In conclusion, could you clarify whyRadio Times articles should be considered as disqualified PR? The magazine is now independent from the BBC. Filer390 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they kill somebody off every five/ten years that seems pretty standard in itself, and the RadioTimes sources (which are from the same writer) are utterly promotional to send viewers to VOD and onto a bog standard soap recap. It adds nothing to the article outside recapping the episode. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to a section within the main Cindy Beale article. I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG in it's current state, and I'm not sure how notable it is overall, especially compared to similar storylines, like Who shot J.R.? (maybe a different discussion there though). Also, I notice the nominator is creating their own draft about the same subject... - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started a section on Cindy Beale about this whodunit. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify: Unbelievably cruel to delete someone's hard work, especially when it's been nominated by someone who creates articles for random episodes on the daily basis. This storyline will culminate at the anniversary and will no doubt gain traction when the 40th approaches. Tamzin Kuzmin (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd response to an AFD... First, it isn't "unbelievably cruel" to nominate an article for deletion, especially when this happens on a daily basis and the article meets the critieria for deletion. You are seemingly assuming bad faith in this discussion, which is not the case. As for me being "someone who creates articles for random episodes on the daily basis", that is both irrelevant and blatantly false. Of the thirty-six articles I have written, three are television episodes, and only two are EastEnders episodes. And on "This storyline will culminate at the anniversary and will no doubt gain traction when the 40th approaches" You don't know that for sure, and in a way supported the argument that in its current state, this article fails WP:GNG. Even supposing you end up being correct, the 40th anniversary is over a month away, and is it really worth keeping this poor article up for that long, even with the chance that this storyline doesn't get much coverage come 40th or afterwards? I'm not opposed to this storyline receiving an article in the future, but it simply isn't notable enough as of now. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted that the storyline isn’t significant at this time as we don’t know what will take place in it. However, an article on the 40th anniversary live episode currently exists, despite there being no evidence of its importance due to its plot line. Just as we can assume it will be important due to previous anniversary specials ie 25th and 30th anniversary, we can assume Who Attacked Cindy will be important due to previous whodunnits like Who Killed Archie? and Who Killed Lucy Beale? This storyline requires an article as it has been confirmed to be part of the 40th anniversary episodes, and can be added to over time. Filer390 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said it is insignificant because there is no guarantee that sufficient sources will exist in the future, not because it might not be important to the show's story. EastEnders Live (2025 episode), Who Killed Archie?, and Who Killed Lucy Beale? are all notable on their own, and they have the sources to prove it. An article doesn't exist because you say it should, it needs to pass WP:GNG. They do, this doesn't (as of now). To reiterate, this story being part of the 40th anniversary doesn't support its keeping and it certainly does not "require" an article for that reason. An article should only be created when the topic passes the general notability guideline, which this currently does not. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer you to the article on Who Killed Lucy Beale? once again; it was created only a few days after the storyline began (similar to Who Attacked Cindy?), using only one source (Digital Spy) and a lot less content than this article currently possesses. initial publication of Who Killed Lucy Beale? There was also little evidence to illustrate why the storyline was notable enough to achieve an article. Filer390 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, was there any evidence which existed at that point in time which suggested the storyline would become so crucial? The article certainly doesn't; I would say Who Attacked Cindy's article contains much more evidence of that. Evidently, Who Killed Lucy Beale? gained more sources because it was promoted as a crucial storyline to the show, just like Who Killed Archie? before it and just like Who Attacked Cindy? now- because we know that it will be part of the 40th anniversary storyline. Clearly, the storyline's notability will rise. Filer390 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was also 2014, over ten years ago; Wikipedia's quality standards have significantly evolved since then. Just because an article was created under less stringent conditions in the past doesn't mean that the same approach should be applied still, especially if it contradicts the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG) , which you seem to have no regard for despite its importance. I'd also like to point out that while "Who Killed Lucy Beale?" passes general notability, it isn't necessarily a model of a great article. Please realise that the decision to delete an article is not about what might happen in the future; it is what's verifiable and notable now. Your certainty around how the article subject will gain notability violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL (Sidenote: This also states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors", which the creation and development section is). If the storyline indeed gains traction closer to the 40th anniversary, nothing prevents its article from being recreated later. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Cindy Beale. This article currently contains a lot of plot detail that needs to be cut down. Normally a storyline would begin in the relevant character article and split if it gets too long. This storyline will probably gain more notability over time and generate reception. At present this is not the case, so I feel it would be better contained in Cindy Beale's article for now.Rain the 1 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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