Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 26

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 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 22:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summit, Hendricks County, Indiana

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

This one is pretty maddening, notwithstanding that Baker's statement on the name origin was completely misrepresented. (It's also likely not true, but that's another issue.) Anyway, the only "good" information comes from aerial photos, which are quite maddening. Basically this was a rail point on the old PRR mainline west out of Indianapolis towards Terre Haute. What the photos show is three phases. In the oldest phase, from the '50s, there appears to be some sort of industrial/warehouse concern here, possibly belonging to the railroad; this morphs into a different configuration sometime in the 1970s-early '80s, and then everything begins to evaporate, so that by 2003 the area is completely blank, which it remains today. And the only other thing I could find that I could definitely associate to this point is a page in a 1961 PRR employee timetable, which lists it between "Clayton" and "West Summit" and shows an interlocking and siding capacity here. The topos show multiple rail lines here, so one could interpret this and West Summit as being the ends of a small sort-of yard. But that's as good as it gets. This is an insanely difficult thing to search, because there is also a Mt. Summit in the state which is also a railroad point, and there is an Indiana County in PA. Trying to search including the county got lots of hits on the same useless geological report but nothing that said anything about this point. Other than the timetable I couldn't find anything railroad-related; if someone had PRR roadway maps it might show something but I couldn't find one; all my hits were on general system maps which do not even begin to go to this level of detail. At this point I think it was a rail point which supported some industrial business, but there's no sign anyone ever lived here. This is barely outside the Clayton city limits, btw, and there is nothing but farmland around it. Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker's source is in parentheses in the Hendricks "Summit" entry on page 316. It's the 1930s Works Progress Administration files, which would rule out anything in the 1950s. That's looking in the wrong direction, forward not back. You'll find Summit station in Hendricks listed in 1880s railway guides as on the Vandalia Line. The 1880 Lippincott's also confirms that this was just a station. Uncle G (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Serra

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

Fails WP:GNG. I tried to do WP:before, but I don't see any sources that talk about him at all in detail and per Wikipedia:LUGSTUBS . 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling, Olympics, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SIGCOV at San Jose Ahora, which has ~260 words of coverage on him decades after his death and notes that in addition to his cycling successes (he won numerous national championships) he also was the father of kart racing in Uruguay, designing the first kart track in South America. For a three-time Olympian, three-time Pan American Games medalist and multi-time national champion who's still remembered today as "the pride of San José sports," it is virtually guaranteed that there will be further coverage in newspapers of the time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LUGSTUBS is a link to an RfC. Not a deletion rationale. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per SIGCOV as mentioned above. Won National championships. WP:GNG should apply.BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not because of national championships, which are neither here nor there, but because he does seem to meet WP:SPORTCRIT per above. Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Durant III

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

This subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being chief counsel of an agency within a government department is not anything that would be inherently notable on Wikipedia. None of the sources are independent, non-trivial coverage of this person, they consist of:

Public records database
Schedule announcement that just lists his name and job title
Alumni spotlight. This is offline and not on the Wayback machine. If it were accessible it might be something, but we don't really know what it was.
Lawyer database entry
Linkedin profile
Official biography
Another official biography
Doesn't mention him

I googled and did a news archive search and just found more official releases and lawyer directory entries. An accomplished guy no doubt but I'm just not seeing anything that meets Wikipedia notability standards. Here2rewrite (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Military, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note on point 3, offline sources are entirely acceptable. Which isn't to say he passes NPERSON otherwise, it doesn't look like it, but the source 'not being accessable' is not relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was in a rare book library or something sure, it wouldn't be disqualified. But it seems to be lost entirely to linkrot and we will never know what it said, so it's not a usable source (unless someone can find it). --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Reads like a CV. Page created by an SPA. Mztourist (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:GNG.~~ Anktjha (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Reads like a promotional CV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minimal coverage in Gbooks, from what are various government documents. We don't have enough sourcing for this person... What's used in the article isn't acceptable as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - as I noted on the subject talk page, in substance: "I have disclosed, for over 13 years, any connection with any subject who has a Wikipedia article. I am an old friend of the subject since at least 1995, when we were both delegates to the American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division House of Delegates. We remain friends and have been connected on LinkedIn for some years now." Amusingly, our connection was linked to the article. Durant is accomplished, but I'll leave it up to disinterested Wikipedians to !vote on whether he is notable, because we've been friends for three decades. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 22:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powercfg

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

Wikipedia is not a software instruction manual. Sandstein 22:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a software instruction manual, and cleaning up this article would effectively amount to blanking it. This content is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Macleod (art director)

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

Significant WP:BEFORE has brought up no reliable sources at all, and no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, Journalism, Visual arts, and New York. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent sources with significant coverage. [3] is not independent, and [4] is unreliable and almost certainly copied from Wikipedia itself anyway. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched WP:LIBRARY, couldn't find any significant coverage.

Jfire (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references at all in the article, and my search was as unsuccessful as those before me. Even if the claims in the article were supported, this is just basic art director employment that does not meet WP:ARTIST standards such as an artist whose work "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention." Asparagusstar (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; being employed by a newspaper of record isn't a free ticket to a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale shared above. Barnt Toust 22:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 22:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian NINJAs

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

No notable pro wrestling tag team. Just worked on the independet promotions. No in deep coverage about the team from third party sources. [5] A few mentions of them winning the title, but most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE results from events no focusing around them HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage from what I see. I can't find anything about this pair either, likely not meeting notability for athletes. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D.B.T. David

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

All I could find of him online was passing mentions, and few of the sources cited appear to actually mention him. Draftified once, and moved back with the only changes made being removal of some references. Wikishovel (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Wikishovel (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, The source for this article is from a Biographical booklet titled, "Rev. D.B.T. David: Pastor par excellence" printed by the family after his death, for local readership in Chennai, Nov 2001. The articles of Rev. David had appeared in Tamil newspapers/magazines of the print media era. Church souvenirs contain writings of others about him in Tamil, which preceded times of internet usage and digital formatting. The tribute of Bishop cited is in the YouTube video (in Tamil). There is another reference of his council membership in United Theological College. After Facebook came, some parishioners have commented positively about Rev. David, at different times in the past which are laborious to trace now. He ministered to a neglected community to whom no media or researcher or social worker or church agency engaged with as Rev. David. Therefore, his ministry is considered first of its kind. Clergymen serve the church and the public too without fanfare or promoting themselves. They shun publicity. Any good deed done for publicity will only be self-defeating. Therefore, this article about a social and spiritual transformational work deserves to be at least in a draft format or "sources to be verified" category, for the sake of future researchers. Thank you for your time. (User: Wordofguidance.) Wordofguidance (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for notability. Sourcing used in the article is almost entirely red per Cite Highlighter, so non-RS. I can't find anything about this person... The long note above mentions a book published by the family; I'd consider that a primary source and one isn't enough anyway. Non-notable religious person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming everything is true, there are zero independent, reliable sources in the article or on this page. I'm sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 17:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ada I. Pastore

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

Unnotable argentinian teacher. I was unable to find any relevant sources about this person. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's not just a teacher though, she's a botanist, who discovered new plants, so we need to look for publications in which she discovered plants. I suspect there could be sources in another language too given that she's Argentinian. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't speak Spanish and can only access snippets of most of these sources, but there are a lot of results under her name on Google Books. These nine results [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] all seem like they might contain SIGCOV of her, in addition to the dozens of books that seem to cite her work as a botanist or contain trivial mentions. Based on what I could find I strongly suspect she is notable, but hopefully someone who speaks the language and can actually access the sources can have a proper look. MCE89 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MCE89 above. Seems notable but this article definitely needs some love from a Spanish speaker. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added in details about Pastore. I found a reference that describes her as a member of the Instituto de Botánica: Darwinión, and a chronicle of her life that was published upon her death. There was also a session held in her honor at a 1952 meeting. These details are now cited in the article. Given the period and limited sourcing available, I think this is sufficient indication of notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the improvements of DaffodilOcean -- the honorary membership is a WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to DaffodilOcean for the improvements to the article. MCE89 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as upgraded: a notable botanist of her time. PamD 09:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playwin

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

Advert tone, does not meet notability guideline. Aqurs1 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill gambling company Lyndaship (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Sikkim. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to An Abandoned Team. Star Mississippi 17:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Lee

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

I conducted a thorough search in both Chinese and English and found nothing mentioning the subject aside from a couple of interviews and reviews about his recent directorial debut An Abandoned Team. He also just made his debut with this 2024 film, and all of his previous film credits are as assistant director or script supervisor, which can hardly be considered major roles in film production. Fails both GNG and NCREATIVE. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Hong Kong. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to An Abandoned Team: and undo the redirect when he has other films maybe. BUT technically this is a WP:DIRECTOR pass so not opposed to Keep. If R is chosen, please merge content that is judged suitable in a Production/Background section. It is not of little interest to know what films he was assist. dir. before that one. Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not against redirecting to An Abandoned Team as a reasonable ATD. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 17:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They'll Need a Crane

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites recordings of the song. There are some RSes that has non-trivial coverage of the song (A.V. Club and Stereogum), but there is not enough for a standalone article. This should redirect to Lincoln (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torn (Lisa Ajax song)

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

Only relevant for Melodifestivalen 2019, and hasn't received sufficient coverage otherwise. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these criterias at WP:NMUSIC. 2, The recording has appeared on Sweden’s national music chart. And within the Top10. 5, The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, yes Melodifestivalen which broadcast on the national broadcaster SVT and had millions of viewers. Criteria 6 and 7 also applies. Clearly also within WP:GNG. Clearly notable and relevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its performance at Melodifestivalen counts against it, as the song is only ever mentioned in independent sources that cover Melodifestivalen 2019, not the song in its own right as is required for notability. For the same reason, reaching the top 10 isn't a sufficient condition as that's only an indication that such sources exist, but they don't in this case. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear here. Its notable. I have improved sourcing as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Of the 7 sources currently in article, [7] is documentation of the song having charted. [3], [4], [5], [6] seem to be about Melodifestivalen 2019 in general: they provide routine info about the competition, like who was performing, how many points each person got, etc. Torn is given a passing mention and/or included on list of songs, as are all other finalist performers.

Sources [1] and [2] are behind a paywall for me, so if anyone can speak to extent coverage of Torn in those articles that would be very helpful for the discussion. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC -> "Articles [about songs] unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" (from WP guidelines). I don't think it can be argued that a song being performed at Melodifestivalen makes it inherently notable, and I can find no signif coverage of Torn, nor any notable covers or independent analysis. I also see another contender for delete (Awful Liar) on Lisa Ajax's page, which has very similar problems to this article... InsomniaOpossum (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear. The song is notable. On several points as mentioned in my Keep rationale. The sources are clear on providing facts for the points on WP:NMUSIC. I stand by my Keep opinion as well. It was a Top 10 hit in Sweden, and performed in the semifinal, Second Chance round and the final of Melodifestivalen which is a major deal in Sweden.BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article have been improved since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC as stated above in my rationale is crystal clear. This song is notable per several points at the ”Recordings” criteria. Clearly notable. And sources to match. My Keep stance remains.BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
repeating your argument for keep at each relist is bludgeoning. Please stop. You have made your case, but consensus is not clear and we need to hear from other editors. Star Mississippi 13:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Simply meets WP:NSINGLE #1 for charting number 9 on a national chart. The position it charted clearly makes it notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 17:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demzy BaYe

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and all the sources cannot count toward WP: GNG. There are also elements of source farming here, in June 2024, this source was published in up to nine ([15] , [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] different newspapers with different titles but same contents word for word. Probably, the subject's notability is tied to being the originator of Baye Dance step, however, the dance step is also not notable. I would have redirect it to Dance with a Purpose Academy (DWP Academy) but it has no page on Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Dance, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In accepting the draft of this article, I considered it under WP:NMUSICOTHER, and yes, took the invention of dance steps to be notable, supported by national shows and performances, as documented. I don't think we're seeing source farming - rather, as happens with AP and similar, a base article was probably produced in one source location and circulated (it's not a press release) - the piece was found in respectable sources such as the Accra Times - so the only limitation is that that counts only once. Given performance, choreography, etc., I believe GNG is met, if not by much - I've seen a lot of less-well-attested articles (and yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid, but I weight what there is vs. the source base in Ghana). SeoR (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SeoR Thanks for the explanation but I took my time to go through all the sources and couldn't find GNG sources. The widely circulated source is highly promotional with flowery languages.hijacking the internet...He boasts a remarkable footprint... the multidimensional dance powerhouse whose talent has garnered widespread admiration and inspired an entire generation. .... Other sources are social media gossips like [23] [24] [25] and so on. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back, and I see your point. I do think the over-circulated article could be genuine "entertainment journalism" which often tends to the flowery, but I agree it's not ideal. And the "gossipy" materials are only good for background, not as primary references. I will try to search some of the main Ghana media sites for more. In the end, this was a "Random AfC" and I have no attachment, but I am aware that our coverage of areas such as arts in most non-EU, non-Anglosphere countries could use a boost, so I'd be loathe to lose an article with real potential. SeoR (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a delete, the sourcing just isn't there... Inventing a dance step seems like a tenuous claim to notability with such poor sourcing. I can't find anything extra we could use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibjaja055Per @WP:GNG, a topic is presumed notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Demzy Baye meets this criterion because:

He has been featured in multiple suitable sources, including GhanaWeb, CitiNewsroom, Channel1News, MyJoyOnline, and Pulse Ghana.

These sources provide significant, non-trivial coverage, not just passing mentions.

The sources are independent and reliable, meeting Wikipedia's editorial standards.

His contributions, including originating the Baye Dance Step and influencing DWP Academy, demonstrate lasting impact in the dance industry.

Since Demzy Baye meets @WP:GNG and @WP:NMUSICBIO, deletion is unnecessary. Instead, efforts can be made to improve citations if needed. Kwekujasper (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:COMPOSER. There are no sources to establish WP:GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. There's consensus for this to be kept. Elmidae, if you think this should be moved, it should either be boldly done or a formal requested move be opened. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of refugia

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

Tagged as an essay for 10+ years. Effectively an orphan, listed as a see also in one article (it was also an easter egg link in another, I fixed that...). Categorized in broad category (Ice ages). WP:GNG of this is unclear. Perhaps parts of it could be merged to Refugium (population biology), which seems to be what refugia (otherwise, a disambig) means here. Why this exists as a separate article from that one is beyond me, except perhaps this is too poor to merge? But I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be sure if this is useful to merge or not. But as a stand alone article it makes little sense to keep. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good, clear, cited overview (heck, even the lead is cited), followed by a perfectly sensible list of refugia as defined in population biology, with (gasp) every example actually cited (now that would transform Wikipedia's 100,000 list articles if it caught on as a meme habit...). There's nothing wrong with this list article at all; and merging it with the parent article would clutter it up and grossly unbalance it, almost doubling its length and dilute its argument which presents what a refugium is: the list correctly presents specific instances. So, I'd oppose any merge, it's a definite Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Examples of ice age refugia. Refugium (population biology) is a very broad term, while this article is concerned with only one particular type. Other than that, I agree that this is a useful overview with great sourcing, and that it should be kept. And what in particular is "poor" about the writing? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the move suggested makes sense. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:

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

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.

2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.

3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.

4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.

5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.

I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about the merits of those point

To be clear the criteria for inclusion is not about simply having reliable sources, nor if you know that it is TRUE, but rather if it meets specific criteria for being notable. See the linked policies in response to each of your points:

The two sources are effectively WP:PRIMARY sources as they recount who-said-what. I was unable to find any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage of this "volunteer role" such as the impact, result, or aftermath of her involvement (ie did it accomplish anything of note). Hutton's role isn't even covered in the Greenbelt scandal article.
Both Hudak and Harris are simply passing mentions of being in proximity of notable people and thus it would still fail WP:NINI. The exact timeline isn't relevant.
The reliable sources refer to her as a "longtime strategist"[26] and " one-time chief of staff" (e.g. appointed) [27] which is in the realm of politics does not mean she meets WP:POLITICIAN, and simply having those titles does not itself establish notability.
The other sig-coverage I assume you're referring to is "Tim Hudak’s daughter Miller the light of his life" -- which is an article centered around their daughter, and the only reason this article was covered was given in the title, because it was about the notable, Tim Hudak and the impact on his political aspirations their daughters illness created. WP:NINI
Per reliable sources from the article, her role on the board is a "part-time role." [28]. No indication she had any significant role, in anything having to do with any scandal of Metrolinx, and again, isn't even referenced in that article's page.
With regards to the National Post citation above, I think the title is supporting of a general lack of notability "Ontario Liberals target Conservative leader Hudak's wife over cancelled gas plant" (emphasis added) -- the article has chosen to use "leader's wife" instead of directly referencing Hutton by name in the title.

Based on the above, I suggest nothing has been provided to support WP:PERSONthe person [...] should be "worthy of notice" [...], "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". She appears to have worked in the proximity of notable people/events/companies, but does not support that she meets any of the criteria of being independently notable. Also does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. TiggerJay (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The people who wrote the articles have no first hand knowledge of Deb Hutton's role in the Greenbelt scandal. Secondary sources including quotes from Primary sources, does not make them primary. The content not being the Greenbelt scandal article has no basis on Hutton's notability. It's a good idea for her to be mentioned by that article.

2. Sources make clear her role in appointed positions are significant. In 2003, the the Globe and Mail said that no government decisions were made without her approval: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/here-are-the-backroom-players/article18430066/.

3. There's more to the article than those titles. So this point is irrelevant.

4. The article gives significant coverage to Hutton's actions not just Hudak's.

5. Her not being referenced by the Metrolinx page does not support her not being notable. That article should probably mention her and other board members.

6. Just because the article title chooses to disrespectfully refer to her as Tim Hudak's wife, does not mean the article was not primarily about her.

A coverage gap in other articles does not support a finding of lack of notability. It supports a finding that the articles in question should be updated. Wikipedia is not a place were women's actions should be attributed to men, despite the fact that others may do that. Just because other sources give undue weight to Deb Hutton's relationship with her husband, does not mean we can do the same here, WP:NPOV. The national post article is about Deb Hutton and giving only passing mentions to her husband, not the other way around. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building, which has been been demonstrated time and time again. ANI ANI 2 BLPN talk talk 2 As such, I can only see further responding to you here will add heat without light, so I will defer to other editors to discuss the merits of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working on adding sources to the article, so for now this will be a comment. Thus far the best WP:SIGCOV I have found is a two page article on Hutton from the Toronto Star:

References

DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Keep looking for SIGCOV, after a half hour I couldn't find anything. But keep looking! TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Courtesy pinging all editors from prior AfD who have been edited in the last 12 months per WP:APPNOTE : @MCB: @Yom: TiggerJay (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hutton's role as a political strategist in Canadian politics has spanned multiple administrations in Ontario. In addition to the source I cited above from the Toronto Star, the other two best sources are here: [29] and [30]. All three of these articles are WP:SIGCOV. In addition she has received additional minor mentions in multiple publications that are reliable and independent, further contributing to WP:BASIC DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit to correct signature - not sure how I added the nowiki brackets) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean appear to satisfy WP:BASIC]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss added sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources listed above and in the article are extensive - just looking at the first thing I google, I don't know why we are here; BEFORE failure. I've never heard of the other Deborah Hutton's - and this well-known Canadian operative has been the subject of much media attention for decades, since she was implicated last century in the Ipperwash Inquiry Nfitz (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. With at least two where sources have been identified, this is not a good bundle. For 1924 and 1966, a good argument has been made to retain. For the remainder, they may be renominated or handled via an ATD such as the proposed merger. Star Mississippi 17:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 U.S. Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. I had attempted to redirect these articles to U.S. Figure Skating Championships, as has been done with literally hundreds of similar articles over the past month, but was reverted on the grounds that "This page have [sic] a reference source". As if that was the problem. Since the medalists were the only information supported by what sources I could access, I added those sources to the parent article. Recommend deletion or forced redirect back to U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All pages have a references source, it's not non-notable. If you think it's not enough, you can add it more. The past year was so far and it need more time find the sources. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There's no need for an individual page for each year; the information can be better presented on a single page for the recurring event as a whole. Espatie (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have already merged what little there was of value. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espatie: No need for an individual page for each year, what does it means? If you agree that, all pages should be redirect. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says: there is no need for a separate article for every year of this event. One page for the event as a whole, with a combined table of results is sufficient Espatie (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at 1966, there seems to have been plenty of coverage of the event. E.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the 1966 article should be kept, I'm sure the AFD closer can separate it out from the others. I trust your judgment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources for 1924 too: [36][37][38][39][40][41]. Also, pages 22 to 29 of the "Skating magazine" source listed in the article are about the 1924 event. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are sources for some of the topics bundled together. I recommend we focus on this particular topic and nominate the topics independently. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Per sources listed above for the earliest (1924) and latest (1966) event in this AfD, it is clear there are sources for these. Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering -- the current name of this organization -- as an obvious ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Commission of Agricultural Engineering

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

Blatantly promotional, unsourced article about an organization. It could be notable, but I see no reason for the article in its current to remain on the mainspace. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Education, and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and need more sources. HeMahon (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 01:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (the organization's new name as of 2008), which now has verifiable information about a journal published by the organization. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced. A search for sources yielded nothing indepth. LibStar (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DePaul Blue Demons men's soccer. (non-admin closure) Aydo h8^[contribs] 13:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Secco

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability threshold. I found a 1982 New York Times article quoting him as an 'English and philosophy instructor', and what looks like an interview for the Chicago Tribune in 1987 about a National Junior College Athletic Association tournament, which doesn't seem to count as WP:SIGCOV of him as an individual. Other than that mainly sources affiliated with DePaul University. C 679 12:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Illinois. C 679 12:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DePaul Blue Demons men's soccer where he is mentioned and which appears to be the only claim to fame.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 12:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the first reply. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly not notable; however, I am not opposed to a redirect to DePaul Blue Demons men's soccer. Anwegmann (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DePaul Blue Demons men's soccer: per whoever wrote that first comment. CNC (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alanis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet GNG and no longer meets NMMA Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Databases and fight results don't show that WP:GNG is met. Although he met an old notability criteria for MMA fighters, with a 5-3 record he never came close to meeting the existing standard of being world top 10. Fails to meet any current WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2025 (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 12:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former MMA fighter. JTtheOG (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ji (surname 蓟)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article went through AfD a few months ago, which ended in no consensus. Every single source brought up at the nomination page was a name dictionary that briefly mentions some mythical legend about how a descendant of the Yellow Emperor was enfeoffed by King Wu of Zhou in some town named Ji and then the town was conquered by some neighboring state and then the residents took up this up as their surname. None of them provide any evidence of the notability of this name or family. The sources currently in the article are two dictionaries that only mention the name and some brief explanation of the legend. Unless more sources can be found outside of "some people in a town 1,000 years ago adopted the town name as their surname and then they went to live in some other places" then this article runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT and WP:NNAME and is best deleted. It was also proposed that it could be redirect to Ji (surname) in the old AfD but I don't think this would really benefit readers as that page is just a listing of links to articles about different surnames transliterated as "Ji". Sorry for the very long nomination statement. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Wikipedia articles about people with the name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Analysis of the sources
After translating from Chinese to English through Google Translate, Zhu 2009 provides 352 words of coverage about the subject, Xu & Hou 2017 provides 205 words of coverage about the subject, and Beijing Evening News 2009 provides about 500 words of coverage about the subject.
My view is there is sufficient depth in these sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources discuss the origin of the surname 蓟, etymological analysis about the different components in the the character's formation, the places where the surname is most common, the fact that it is not among the 400 most common surnames, how the Eastern Han scholar Ji Zixun [zh] and the Eastern Han military commander Ji Liao (Chinese: 蓟辽) have the surname 蓟, and how King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Yellow Emperor the title of Marquis of Ji following which they took Ji as their family surname. There is enough information that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline).
This depth of coverage about the surname means that WP:NOTDICT is not violated. The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences notes: "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." The sources provide enough information to write an article that has "encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name".
Sources
1. Zhu, Tianmin 朱天民 (2009). 姓氏的尊嚴：從姓氏起源察知神對人無盡的愛 [The Dignity of Surnames: Discover God's Endless Love for People from the Origin of Surnames] (in Chinese). Taipei: 歸主出版社. pp. 262–263. ISBN 978-986-6769-160. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "我所姓的這「薊」,很少人能正確的認識,當然是因為這姓氏太少;可是,究其歷史卻是相當久遠。約等於士師後的撒母耳時代,周武王封黃帝裔孫於「薊」,即今日的北京城西的大部分地區,後代就以「薊」為姓而留存。"
  From Google Translate: "Very few people can correctly recognize my surname "Ji", of course because there are so few people with this surname; but Yes, its history is quite long. Around the time of Samuel after the Judges, King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty named the descendants of the Yellow Emperor "Ji", which is most of the area west of Beijing today. The descendants continued to use "Ji" as their surname."
  The book notes: "然若查考古人為何以圖二的「草」,與圖三的「魚」和圖四象形的「刀」來組成,而稱開紫色小花之菊科花草的名字。乍看之下,它們似乎是毫不相干;當然,依造字的原則,可叫我們知道它是一種草的名字。又因它的葉子為魚翅狀,所以就如此組合。可是,古人又把它的右旁組以圖四的「刀」, 真會使這魚和草都不敢面對。"
  From Google Translate: "However, if we look into why the archaeologists combined the "grass" in Figure 2 with the "fish" in Figure 3 and the pictographic "knife" in Figure 4 to name the flowers and plants of the Compositae family with small purple flowers. At first glance, they seem to have nothing to do with each other; of course, according to the principles of word creation, we know that it is the name of a kind of grass. And because its leaves are shark fin-shaped, they are combined like this. However, the ancients also placed the "knife" in Figure 4 on the right side of it, which really made the fish and grass afraid to face it."
2. Xu, Tiesheng 徐铁生; Hou, Xiaoru 侯笑如, eds. (2017). "263蓟　Jì". 《百家姓》新解（精） [A New Interpretation of "Hundred Family Surnames" (Excerpt)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 978-7-101-12533-7. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes:
  From Google Translate:
3. "以蓟为姓在童话里飞扬" [With Ji as the surname, soaring in the fairy tale]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). 2022-04-06. Archived from the original on 2024-09-09. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "也由于被人喜爱，才有了蓟国，并带来了蓟姓。据《姓氏考略》记载，大约在殷商时期，古代范阳（约今北京城西南一带）因为漫山遍野长着独具气质和才情的蓟，便自然形成一个小国，史称蓟国。蓟国是今北京最早形成的国家之一。... 蓟在中国古代姓氏中的位置也比较理想，开创了神话一般的存在。其中心人物是东汉建安年间名士蓟子训。正史、野史、方志类古籍对他均有记载。"
  From Google Translate: "Because of its popularity, the Ji State was established, and the Ji surname was brought to the country. According to the "Surname Research", around the Shang Dynasty, the ancient Fanyang (approximately the southwest of Beijing today) naturally formed a small country, known as the Ji State, because the mountains and plains were full of Ji with unique temperament and talent. The Ji State was one of the earliest countries formed in Beijing today. ... Ji also has an ideal position in ancient Chinese surnames, creating a mythical existence. The central figure is Ji Zixun, a famous scholar during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty. He is recorded in official history, unofficial history, and local chronicles."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "蓟姓起源,名人及家谱" [Origin of the Ji surname, celebrities and family tree]. Shangdu.com [zh] (in Chinese). 2008-07-17. Archived from the original on 2014-05-08. Retrieved 2024-09-09.
    The article notes: "据《姓氏考略》记载：周武王封黄帝的后裔于蓟（今北京），其子孙便以国名为姓。"
    From Google Translate: "According to the "Surname Research", King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huangdi the title of Ji (now Beijing), and their descendants took the name of the country as their surname."
  2. Wang, Kezhong 王克忠 (2011). 国学精粹 [The Essence of Chinese Studies] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Textile Press [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5064-7230-2. Retrieved 2024-09-09.
    The book notes: "【蓟姓】西周时,周武王封黄帝的后代在蓟,其就以蓟为自己家族的姓氏。"
    From Google Translate: "[Ji surname] During the Western Zhou Dynasty, King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huang the title of Marquis of Ji, and they took Ji as their family surname."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ji (surname 蓟) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ji (surname 蓟) participants: Yinweiaiqing (talk · contribs), Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), CFA (talk · contribs), AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk · contribs), Traumnovelle (talk · contribs), and OwenX (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to readers, these are the same sources I addressed in the nom statement. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Cunard, which are enough to meet GNG. I've also edited the article to add an offline source, which has about a paragraph of information about the surname. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's more evaluation of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the sources provided above. This isn't the longest article ever, but the GNG has pretty clearly been met. Whether the traditional origin story is true or not, or important or not, does not matter. The GNG has been met, the article should be kept. Toadspike [Talk] 13:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per description provided by Cunard, the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvymaro (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:11, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Coppen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Albums and songs, and Indonesia. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Does not show enough Notability to be included in mainspace. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sent it to draftspace days back but I've seen alot of improvement source-wise and contentwise, passes WP:GNG at it's current state but still doubtful on WP:NACTOR. ANU^writes 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Romeo & Juminten and Best Friends Forever. Also appears to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs cleanup and expansion (the Indonesian corresponding article can be of use) but she seems to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions that received coverage (not all have a page on this Wikipedia (yet)) -Mushy Yank. 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments here are vague references to policy, lacking substantial arguments. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep !votes that I see (including mne) do not correspond to the vague references to a policy as described in the essay you are providing a link to.....Did you mean the Delete !vote and nomination rationale? (That’s not ’most’ of the comments). -Mushy Yank. 22:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Sandstein 09:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abrams (criminal)

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2017. Not clear the subject meet WP:GNG or is compliant with WP:CRIMINAL.4meter4 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. No inline citations whatsoever. Spideog (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I never know how to write these mobster articles, but he is described as a significant mobster in several books on the topic, including topical crime encyclopedias. [42] [43] [44]. I will add sources later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article was in those two books. Could probably be expanded further he's covered a decent amount but it at least verifies now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spideog Does my addition of inline citations change your mind in any way? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:22, 28 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!} 07:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted] Keep The subject does not meet criteria for WP:CRIME. He is not internationally renowned, and there is no separate coverage except for citations in other compendiums (encyclopedias), as detailed in paragraph 3 of notability guideline. Silvymaro (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silvymaro It is not required that a criminal be "internationally renowned" to have an article, that is for 1 event type crimes as indicated by the guideline saying this applies with those known for a single crime or trial, which he is not. Not so for mobsters or people who are known for serial criminality. Firstly, not all the books that cover him that I linked are encyclopedias, and secondly reliable encyclopedias do count for notability - why wouldn't they? There are many sources not used here but the complaint was sourcing issues, which I addressed. GNG and NBASIC are both passed and he is not a BIO1E. There are dozens of pages in books about him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA Okay. I see your point. I am not sure exactly how to interpret Wiki community / notability rules in this specific case, but I will withdraw my vote. Silvymaro (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. When counting Uncle G's unbolded Delete, I see a clear consensus here. The proposed merge was not echoed by others, but anyone is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect to Civil engineering, as this would likely pass our much lower threshold at RfD. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civionics

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

Invented discipline which is very uncommon and does not pass any notability tests. Most GS hits are for a company with this name, very little secondary sourcing. It was AfD'd in 2008 and retained them based upon the argument that it was a "nascent discipline" and had a few sources. 16 years later it can no longer be considered nascent, it is a failed neologism. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This minor (attempted?) neologism doesn't appear to have taken significant hold of the public imagination. At best, it might merit inclusion as a minor, restricted jargon in Wiktionary? But I'm not even convinced of that. Spideog (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like a diamond for a retirement fund. I really have to ask Spideog if he did searches of the term on Google Books and Google Scholar, as those settle the case for keeping an article on this in stone. Google Scholar provides you no shortage of pieces entirely on the discipline (with its name in the headlines of these many articles), and several books, all WP:ACADEMIC from as early as 2004 all the way to 2022 have dedicated at least a page talking about this concept in detail. Some examples: A 2007 book I found dedicated an entire section about a case study of civionics. A CRC Press book from 2020 covered the usage of a civionics system on a bridge in Winnipeg, so clearly this is being incorporated into the real world. This definitely indicates a frequently-encountered subject in the world of engineering and technology. Even a normal Google search should've started giving you this coverage by the third page. Granted, all of the coverage is in academic journals, but since Wikipedia holds a crown to those above any others, and the sources for this topic are plentiful, that's really not a point against it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 04:19, 12 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!} 07:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh merge to civil engineering. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at books, too, and what HumanxAnthro has missed that the book sources, including the ones that xe hyperlinked, are all by Aftab Mufti, citing xyrself as the coiner of this idea. For example, the very first book that comes up for me is a 2005 paper in some conference proceedings authored by Mufti that has the inline citation from Mufti to Mufti: "CIVIONICS (Mufti, 2003) is a new term coined from the integration of Civil-Electronics […]". The "third page" Google Web results (an unsafe reference as Google results vary from editor to editor) are presumably to the Springer and Sage Publications journal articles also all written by Aftab Mufti. This concept has no evidence, even from the sources cited here, that in over 20 years it has escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by other people to the extent that they have documented it. An idiosyncratic academic concept that does not take hold beyond its creator is exactly what our no original research policy addresses. Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe you looked at my examples carefully. The CRC Press book was not written by Mufti at all, and yet it still dedicated an entire section about its use on a real-world bridge in Canada, which I'm pretty sure Mufti was not involved in. The 2007 book I linked was also not by Mufti. It heavily discussed the concept without his help, only citing a paper of his once, which doesn't mean it was by him. I'll grant you a lot of the Google Scholar sources credited Mufti as an author, but even then, many of those Mufti sources had a different bunch of other authors, and I mean a lot of different authors. This is not factoring in the Civionics articles not written by him I found [45] [46] [47] [dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10763719] [48] [49] [50][51] [52] [53] and this that recommends the familiarity of it. A University curriculum as late as 2023 taught an introduction to Civionics, no mention of Mufti at all in there and no credit to him. Acknowledged here in a book with no involvement from Mufti. This cites Civionics as a potential real-world necessity. This all indicates acknowledgement and coverage of the concept beyond Mufti. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As demonstrated by Uncle G, this neologism is not widely used beyond its originator. Sandstein 09:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Iqubal

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

Not a notable entrepreneur. Possible WP:BLP1E (Participation in Shark Tank India). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 11 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!} 07:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from what I understand he's joined Shark Tank as one of the Sharks, which isn't One Event - and he appeared in a Forbes 30/30 list years before then - so the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. I would suggest that this individual is more wikinotable than the company he founded. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. The coverage is only about being appointed as Shark Tank judge and nothing of that announcement present him as a notable entrepreneur. In fact, all sources related to the Shark Tank have same format starting from the headline or title of those pieces through the body of those articles. The other few sources are just passing mention. The Forbes article is not significant enough to demonstrate his notability. Mekomo (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable, We came to know about him, only through sharktank. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't sound like a reason someone wouldn't be notable -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Azhar Iqubal satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED due to multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of his career and achievements beyond a single event. His inclusion in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list demonstrates recognition of his entrepreneurial impact, which is a notable accomplishment. Additionally, his role as a Shark Tank India judge indicates continued influence in the business and entrepreneurial domain. This sustained notability is further supported by reliable sources discussing his contributions to his industry and his company. His public profile and achievements make him a notable figure deserving of a Wikipedia article.--Abhey City (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forbes 30 Under 30 and 40 Under 40 are the paid articles by Forbes. Major awards are paid or non notable. Insufficient evidence to warrant significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)WP:SIGCOV.[reply]
Delete per nom and Bakhtar40 fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Disregarding the view of Crouch, Swale who is now banned. Sandstein 09:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu al-Qusur

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

Does not look like it is notable, no content other than it's location and population. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Location and population meets WP:NPLACE. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly populated place, appears to be a census settlement which passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note I do not mean "census settlement" as "census tract" here - this appears to be a defined village in the census. SportingFlyer T·C 20:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete census tracts are not legally recognised places and I can find no mention of this place in English that isn't circular to Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Delete per nomination. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. It looks like the consensus here is that this article may be based on fringe or unreliable sources and should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Hinduism

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

POV fork of Bhavishya Purana, this topic fails WP:GNG and relies mostly on unreliable sources to push a fringe view point. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's Hindu–Islamic relations. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known also has been mentioned in pages like Bhavishya Purana and Ved Prakash Upadhyay but this page is detail of how it's mentioned in the religious book of Hinduism and it's not something to "push a fringe view point" as similar pages exist like Jewish views on Muhammad or Muhammad and the Bible or Muhammad in the Bahá'í Faith and chosing the word "Hinduism" in title is because none of the Jewish or Christian sources or book mentions Muhammad but the Hindu major scriptures mentions him by name and his followers as same "musalmaan" as we know today. Creation of a distinct page is because his is mentioned by Hindu scholars and Islamic scholars as Kalki avatar too. So it was needed creation of a page detailing those in one page. Therealbey (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On "similar pages exist", see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Which are the the 3 best sources in this article per WP:GNG? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT says "convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page" and I didn't do that I cited sources and scholars like Ved Prakash Upadhyay, Zakir Naik, Abdul Haq Vidyarthi have talked about this. if you want I can cite more sources. Therealbey (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know which are the 3 best sources in this article per WP:GNG? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2,3,7,9 Therealbey (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

2 appears to be [54], seems self-published:[55]
3 according to isbn is this one [56], is that correct?
7 [57] is afaict Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (whoever that is) writing about his own ideas, he is a proponent of the "Muhammed in old Hindu-text" idea, so he is not independent of the subject. That doesn't make him useless as a source, but it doesn't help with WP:N.
9 [58] Can't access, no opinion atm.

Seems Ved Prakash Upadhyay is somewhat related to this subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. I didn't get what you meant by this.

3. Mistake on isbn. I have updated.

7. Ravi Shankar is a prominent Hindu leader and guru and his works has notability.

9. Nothing to say it's your own thing.

If you want I can cite more sources to the page. Therealbey (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 is this book [59], correct?
So 3 is this book? [60][61][62]
7 But not independence in this context, per WP:GNG.
9 Yep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 I think so cause it is applicable in Kalki Avatar
3. Yes!
7. I think it's not but can be used as religious leader views sense.
Should I add more? Therealbey (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 Then it seems to be a WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see the point being made by Therealbey, however, as mentioned on Bhavishya Purana page lead section "The veracity and authenticity of much of the Bhavishya Purana has been questioned by modern scholars and historians, and the text is considered an example of "constant revisions and living nature" of Puranic genre of Hindu literature.", it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG as mentioned in nom. Also, I see that some sources currently used are blog or newspaper...Also, Bhoja#Legends has some historical context? Asteramellus (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whether it's authentic or not according to some of scholars the book is been followed by Hindu doctrine for centuries and has significance in Hinduism. And other than blog post I cited the books too. Therealbey (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Look at the page of Bhavishya purana. It tells a different and more clear story regarding muhammad in Hinduism. The censored view you are pushing here is not only fringe but very deceptive. Its inaccurate too. Also based on unreliable sources. Delete! delete! delete! Redirect to [63] 2409:40C1:4C:76D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if so then prove how and anyone is free to improve the article with citing sources. If you think it's biased you can add also I am keep improving it. Therealbey (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to prove. A detailed description has already been provided on the main page. This vague fork article will only backfire on you and your motives. It’s better to delete it and redirect. There isn’t enough material here for a separate article anyway. Hinduism is not an Abrahamic religion, so it doesn’t share elements with Islam. The Bhavishya Purana is very hostile towards Muhammad, no matter how Muslims try to present it. Perhaps that part was written after the first Islamic invasions of India. We don’t know for sure, but it’s better not to highlight this for the sake of communal harmony. 2409:40C1:12:D6B0:8D3:3CF2:7B36:AA6A (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha nice good. Don't want to give evidence of it just opposing because it goes against own believes wow! You don't have the right to deny a religious scripture it one of eighteen major Puranas and doesn't matter when was written cause Hinduism doesn't have a specific starting point lots of vedic texts and Puranas were written before 10 century to end of medieval period so you can't judge authenticity based on when it was created. The bhavishya Purana had lot of influence in Hindu doctrine. I hope if you counter my reasons come with evidence not own pov. Therealbey (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forget hindu scriptures. I dont think you have even read your own scriptures. Lol (Personal attack removed) 2409:40C1:12:D6B0:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See I told you were just typing your own things not anything factual now you got emotional and started attacking personally! Therealbey (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How hard is it to just click on the redirect and read? Gosh 2409:40C1:12:D6B0:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 14:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A page is needed to cover all this like about Kalki it is not somewhere else and muhammad in bhavishya Purana also then the scholarly opinions which I will add soon. So it's actually a page which focuses on this topic collectively. Hope you understand. No intention to push something which isn't in your religion. Therealbey (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no question but that the title of this article is superior to the book from which it's allegedly a POV fork: we clearly should have an article at this title. Having said that, I have little to no understanding of the topic, so I'm not sure what should be in such an article. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned previously that what is the reason of choosing this title it is because Bhavishya Purana, veds are major books of Hinduism those are the foundation of hinduism when something mentioned there and scholars has also verified that then it becames a thing in Hinduism. similar page exists for Muhammad in Christianity or Judaism but doesn't uses the name of the religion because none of those religions holy books mentions Muhammad by name. But religion like Baha'i Faith mentions him as a prophet so you can see Muhammad in the Baháʼí Faith mentions the nane of religion. This was a example. it's simply because he is mentioned in Hinduism scriptures. Therealbey (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a direct fork of another article; similar articles exist for Muhammad in other faiths. Article could be more thorough however. Eelipe (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OSE. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eelipe. Sources exist and the Article can be easily expanded 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those sources? - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on both POVs exist. Try googling the article's name 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "try googling" is the best you can do, WP:GNG-good sources are unlikely to exist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Garuda ^Talk! 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The claims that Muhammad is mentioned in Hindu scriptures like the Bhavishya Purana and Kalki Purana are speculative and lack significant support from reputable academic or historical scholarship. Many of these interpretations come from fringe sources and are contradicted by mainstream acedamic Hindu studies, with no substantial secondary coverage to establish their notability and I think speculative nature of these claims violates WP:UNDUE, as they represent minority views without sufficient independent verification. Nxcrypto Message 13:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't check the page. Sources are cited. Therealbey (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealbey, I already checked and cleared some gibberish[64][65][66]. Nxcrypto Message 19:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the content is attributed to non-reliable sources (things like www.quranproject.org, al-islam.org, muslimmirror.com, etc which are all blogs or religious opinions, plus other issues mentioned above). If there was anything actually notable about this topic, it should be easy to present academic references that discuss the issue and its controversies; I see none and struggle to find any on my own. The possible exception is Ved Prakash Upadhyay, whose work seems to be controversial. Even if reliable sources could be found, the sum of the article is really just two small disputed points, both of which can be covered more carefully elsewhere (including at Ved Prakash Upadhyay) rather than lumped into an article that would be a magnet for problems. R Prazeres (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also nothing that we already have Hinduism and Islam. Agletarang (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator has stated that they have used AI in the "claim" section of the article. This raises even more concerns as noted at WP:LLM. NXcrypto Message 16:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poor writing is not a reason for deletion if subject meets WP:N. Also per WP:AI, AI usage on wp, while sometimes making for unsavory text, is not a 'concern' in its nature. Eelipe (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the AI-use results in the WP-editor using crap sources, it's a concern. I think that happened here, at least to some extent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Eelipe This is not about poor writing, but additional concerns such as hallucination of information, misrepresentation , synthesis of sources that is often the case with AI generated content. Given that reliable sourcing is pretty much non-existent, and now with concerns about hallucinated information from unreliable sources, WP:TNT applies. NXcrypto Message 09:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I concur with above "(n)ot a direct fork of another article; similar articles exist for Muhammad in other faiths", and "(a)rticle could be more thorough however"; I would suggest that editors interested in developing this article, in the face of such opposition, should try to find some proper scholarship on the issue. I googled books using using the queries "Prophet Muhammad in Hindu scriptures" and "Muhammad in Hindu scriptures", resulting in numerous books by authors from various backgrounds, including authors from the West, East, Middle East; I can't tell how relevant, if at all, but there is something there. There must also be relevant material on Google Scholar, if topic is really credible.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 04:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are no scholarly sources covering it. Because if there were, this article would not be on its way to deletion. Parts of this topic is also thoroughly covered with a critical commentary at Ved Prakash Upadhyay#Selected works. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete :This article is based on a hoax that originated from a controversial book by Ved Prakash Upadhyay. The claim was later propagated by Zakir Naik using a selective and incomplete translation of the Bhavishya Purana and further circulated by some Islamic websites. The content lacks reliable sources and promotes misinformation. CelesteQuill (talk) 11:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless heavily revised: I believe that unless immediate and major revision is given to the article with higher quality sourcing, it is useless and serves as misinformation. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 00:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Full of fringe mess, mostly cited with poor blogs that have no place in WP:RS and Ved Prakash has been criticised by many authors for his Avante-garde works. At best a hoax. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De-Trumpification

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

Super POVy and synthy. Lumps together a bunch of disparate ideas, and is basically just an excuse to compare Trump to the Nazis. Of the six sources cited, five fail as WP:NEWSOPEDGolikom (talk) 07:34, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-established term, has had a Wiktionary entry for nearly a decade as well. --Tataral (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary - 77.22.105.31 (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term itself fails WP:NOTDICT, and the underlying concept, i.e.the proposed process of addressing, mitigating and dismantling the political, social, and cultural influences associated with Trumpism, is vague and mostly hypothetical. As explained by the nominator, various sources use "de-Trumpification" to refer to different ideas, such as rolling back Trump's policies, investigating Trump and his associates, and removing Trumpism from society and the government. The broadest definition of "de-Trumpification" is only used in thinkpieces, which we should not base an article on as they are not reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article in its present state is just a collection of quotes that use the term, though it seems there's likely more to be written about the concept. – MW_(t•c) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be acceptable. The article was recently created and is still being developed. --Tataral (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArbeiten8 (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Could become a notable topic, but there is a lack of high-quality sources on this subject. I spotchecked the current sources cited, and many of the sources barely discuss "De-Trumpification" and/or were low-quality(op-eds, letters to the editors, highly partisan newspapers). I also searched on Gscholar and Gbooks without success. We should wait for academic sources to arrive, as a subject matter as controversial as Donald Trump requires. I agree with nom and Helpful Raccoon. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, especially the use–mention distinction part. The current article is little more than a blob of quotes that use the term without discussing what it means or providing commentary on it. The sources offer no coherent definition of the term that I can see, and so the line (the proposed process of addressing, mitigating and dismantling the political, social, and cultural influences associated with Trumpism) appears to be an invention of the article's creator. Astaire (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and @Astaire. This term is scarcely used and just seems to be a POV fork of Trumpism. I would also back the effort to draftify the article instead if that option reaches broader consensus. Eelipe (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? 🤣🤣🤣 Delete, and fast. Not a known term outside of maybe Bluesky Social --77.22.105.31 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Sloat

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG unless more sourcing is uncovered. The most I found was this from the Record Searchlight. JTtheOG (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the article presented above by JTtheOG, his biggest accomplishment is "honorable mention" on the All-Big Sky team. Combining that with the lack of SIGCOV, this doesn't seem to warrant a stand-alone stub article. Cbl62 (talk) 17:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mothe Srilatha Reddy

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

Sources aren’t SIGCOV, hence failing GNG. Mayors aren’t inherently notable under NPOL, hence failing NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom., no sig cov. and not a mayor is inherently notable TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to WP:NPOL guidelines, a person must win federal/central, or state-level legislature elections to be eligible for a Wikipedia page. Alternatively, they must be notable enough to meet the WP:GNG to qualify for a page. She does not meet either of these criteria. Charlie (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– The role of Deputy Mayor does not inherently confer notability under WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly fails the inclusion criteria for politicians, no sources to satisfy the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of governor general of Belize

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

This page includes a list of non-notable spouses, who do not have their own pages, and is already included in their notable spouses page. Delete as per WP:NINI. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is in contrast to other pages such as Spouse of the governor-general of Australia and Spouse of the prime minister of Canada wherein the spouses themselves are notable, and the page is reliably sourced as such. TiggerJay (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list does not meet the general notability guidelines. I can't find sources with significant coverage of any spouses of governors-general, and I have yet to find any independent reliable source discussing this position as a group (which would be required by the stand-alone list notability guideline). I don't think this needs to be merged to Governor-General of Belize because none of the individuals are notable. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it has clear analogies to the spouses of other heads of state, the difference here is one of documentation. There's just no mention of this position in any of the sources on the politics and constitution of Belize that I have looked at so far, not even looking at older sources that might say "wife" or sources that might cover (for example) Norma Young by name. This does not appear to be a subject documented at all outwith that 1 WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BilletsMauves^€500 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to World Silambam Association. as an ATD.

Sorry, User:Jayeswary-A,, but WP:AFD is one of Wikipedia's deletion processes and at any one time, there are hundreds of discussions going on just like this one to decide whether or not articles should be Kept, Deleted, Redirected, Merged or Draftified. We've been doing exactly this for decades now and this is unlikely to change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Chillayah

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

Looking at the given sources:

[67] is not SIGCOV and only links him as a contact, also not independent as it's a partnership with his association
[68] and [69] do not mention him at all
[70] is IMDB
[71] is his association's official website (primary)
[72] only lists his association in a bullet list of many others, no SIGCOV
[73] is another of his websites
[74] is an interview he gave to a council his association joined, neither independent nor secondary
[75] is another SIGCOV-free bullet list
[76] doesn't mention him, and, looking at the context of how it was used, wouldn't have been independent either way
[77] is his speaker profile at an event, not independent
[78] is literally an advertisement
[79] is the same as the first source, but this time with the title of a different paragraph
[80] is yet another list with no content beyond names
[81] and [82] are open letters he helped writing, very primary
[83] gives me an error 404, but appears to be another open letter

All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Malaysia, and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this link should work (grabbed from archive). You're right that it's just another open letter. Procyon117 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage - there's virtually nothing about him, rather than open letters to which he's signed. The page is also so poorly written as to be nonsensical. Was this drafted by generative AI or Google translate? Bearian (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you for source analysis and after evaluating the sources myself, page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to World Silambam Association as he is the chairman? (No independent significant coverage in the sources I found in an English-language Google search.) PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 05:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Editorial team, rather than simply putting a "notice for nominating the article for deletion," kindly assist or notify someone to assist to edit/cleanup if any maintenance is required. or else, many good articles or historical documents in Wikipedia will be lost unnecessarily by blatantly putting a removal notice on any article. Jayeswary-A (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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!} 04:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FieldComm Group

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

Non-notable company. Lack of reliable sources and secondary/tertiary sources. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find sources that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This is difficult as the nominator and participants disagree about the value of the sources included in the article. But I see no other support for deletion and a rough consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gleam (programming language)

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

Non-notable programming language, lack of SIGCOV/reliable sources, and reads like a documentation. In addition, there is a lack of secondary sources. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Krill article and the De Simone article that are already cited establish notability. Both provide in-depth coverage and are reliable. The author of the former has been a journalist for three decades and the latter has been a software engineer for more than two. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided are sufficient for the extent of the article, see reasons given above. Korn (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's also this update by Krill that's not currently in the article. Should be just enough to meet GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I just heard about Gleam a minute ago and wanted to read the Wikipedia article about it. Strong sign that it is notable. KristofferR (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Ray

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

Does not pass GNG. The sources currently listed in the article is racing reference which is a database of racing results and two from two from ARCA the series he runs but are but is only an entry list and results. I can only find one other source which is a racing preview for the whole series and does not provide SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Mark Milley#Actions of the second Trump administration. as an ATD. Noting that the title of this article section has changed over the course of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley

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

Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. Barnt Toust 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE I agree. NOT NEWS TDS there has been sufficient discussion of the portrait's removal in the article on Gen. Mark Milley. A separate, standalone article is unwarranted and is only popular due to the current political atmosphere. Chiassons (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-publicized artwork and political incident with significant media coverage and public interest. --Tataral (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So maybe your topic is relevant, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own separate article. It may well be best served as a short paragraph in an existing article – Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Barnt Toust 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete per ROUTINE, NOTNEWS, TDS – the page creator needs a thorough lesson in these tenets. I mean this is just ridiculous 🙄 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a trout, master Yoda? I'll invite the next editor who sees fit to, to deliver to Tataral—the page creator—a good WHACK. Barnt Toust 03:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plain old strong delete, then. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration where this is already covered sufficiently. This article unnecessarily stretches two sentences' worth of content into five paragraphs. As a second choice, just delete per nom with a strong dose of WP:TDS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per BT. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:89DA:72DA:5ADF:68C8 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect info to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90... only notable for how mark milley is being treated during second trump admin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Military, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's just a portrait. That's it. It's just a portrait... Norbillian (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom RamHez (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can easily be covered in Milley's own article. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom— Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 2025-01-26T07:31:30 (UTC)
- Striking the first comment by the user who placed another one which was a bit more though-out below. Barnt Toust 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete a blatant WP:COATRACK to make sure that every single petty thing Trump does gets an article publicizing it. a sentence in Milley's article can handle the matter perfectly fine, not to mention actually contextualizing this wrt the animosity between the two. Mangoe (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete. There is nothing noteworthy or controversial about the portrait itself. Its only "claim to fame" is Trump's petty vindictiveness for having it removed from the Pentagon hallway where the portraits of all former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are displayed, including having the wall painted over to hide the holes where the painting was affixed. It's mentioned in Mark Milley#Second Trump administration and in Second presidency of Donald Trump#Other actions. Space4TCatHerder 🖖 20:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration as an alternative to deletion, where it is already discussed. It's a valid subtopic and search time, so outright deletion is not optimal nor warranted by policy. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90 The picture does not need its own article. On Milley's page the photo already has the information that it needs. JER3L1337 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article is well-written and cited with lots of reliable sources. It was also viewed 3 791 times since January 25, making it quite notable in my opinion. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above, and this piece of art is not notable in and of itself, outside of the press coverage surrounding its removal (which is sufficiently covered in the subject article). — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, covered adequately on Milley's page and yet more WP:TRUMPCRUFT Golikom (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not allowed to vote multiple times. Your comments don’t carry more weight just because you post multiple "delete votes". --Tataral (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck the first of this editor's votes for this current one. Barnt Toust 16:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, forgot I'd already commented, sorry. Golikom (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:RECENTISM, unlikely to have sustained coverage jolielover♥talk 11:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article has 2,000 to 3,000 daily readers, despite not being included in any of the templates, so readers don't really agree with the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It's arguably the most famous work of art to ever be displayed in the Pentagon. --Tataral (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article has 2,000 to 3,000 daily readers. For all we know, that could be you artificially inflating the read count, either by yourself or by recruiting friends. That is why WP:POPULARPAGE exists, as counting internet statistics has precisely zero bearing on the notability of the subject matter. Zaathras (talk) 01:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Laughable. --Tataral (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm sorry that you find the fact that you argument is literally and specifically called out as a bad rationale to retain an article "laughable." Zaathras (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Tataral, your willingness to create blatant CRUFT makes me wonder if there should be sanctions on your ability to create articles. I mean it, stop creating these news-item works. Barnt Toust 18:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the view statistics for this article compared to the main article about Mark Milley: view statistics. You will find that the article about Mark Milley gets more than 4 times as many views as the article about his portrait every day, and sometimes more than 27 times as many views (and the portrait article has only once been over 2,000 views in a day). That's because this article is basically about an aspect of Milley's relationship with Donald Trump -- not primarily an article about the artwork depicting Milley. Note also that this is the only article in Wikipedia whose title begins with "Official portrait of ...". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration as an alternative to deletion. It is a valid search term for our worldwide audience, our customers, our readers. As Patar knight said outright deletion not optimal/nor warranted by policy. What we regular editors & old-timers around here might think is best & according to Hoyle is not always the most intuitive for our customer-base. Agree with Patar knight, Metropolitan90, JER3L1337, & Bluethricecreamman. - Shearonink (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeside Holding

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All news articles about this company are routine announcements and press releases. Badbluebus (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, South Korea, United States of America, and Illinois. Badbluebus (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a normal routine for all companies because their updates called their news Beverlyhaley (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the company is registed in Nasdaq US stock exchange and notability reference url available in page, I think the deletion is not the solution of page improvment, kindly allowd company to improve their page with stability

secondly the {{Promotional}} and {{COI}} tags are removed by mistake due to i am not very professional in wikipedia editing and i am creating this page for my own company Beverlyhaley (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to discuss here one most important issue and that is paid services of wikipedia

Because you are not allow page owners to create their pages with your guide lines. Then they hire and pay for someone to the same work. I think for the solution of this issue you are requested to allow owners to improve their own pages without deletion Beverlyhaley (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have the mistaken idea that the article in question is "your page" or "the company's page". That is not correct (although it is a common error). The page is Wikipedia's article about the company. Neither you nor the company is the "page owner"; Wikipedia is the page owner. If the company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there is no reason to have an article about it, regardless of what the company might like. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the correction of my words Beverlyhaley (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is only for Administrator (Bearcat) (R'n'B) (GoingBatty) I also pointing out one thing that I notice during in creating my this page, Some accounts Editors (extended confirmed) and some just new accounts do this activity and mark every page for deletion and after that contact with page owners for page creation services. you are requested please check the same at your end, thanks Beverlyhaley (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and also possible one person handle all these accounts for this type activity (Bearcat) (R'n'B) (GoingBatty) Beverlyhaley (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beverlyhaley: I'm not an administrator. If you want to report an issue to administrators, feel free to post at WP:ANI. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your guidance Beverlyhaley (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm extremely confused by why I was pinged above, as I've never had anything to do with this page, but I'm even more confused by what the editor is even trying to ask me for.
That said, the issue is that notability, for the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, is not established by the company's own self-published press releases about itself — it's established by media coverage about the company in sources independent of itself, such as newspapers, magazines or books. We're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising or public relations platform. We're not looking for simple evidence that the company exists — we're looking for evidence that the company has been the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in reliable sources, to establish that its corporate activities have been externally validated as newsworthy or historically significant by sources that didn't have a vested interest in promoting it. For example, Lenovo doesn't have an article because its own press releases verify that it exists, Lenovo has an article because its activities and operations have been written about by the media as news.
But this is referenced to press releases and directory entries, not GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about the company. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see WP:NCOMPANY being met. E_F⁵ 18:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator blocked for UPE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia is not the place for a company to promote itself. Acceptable articles about companies are overwhelmingly written by volunteer editors, not paid editors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional article. Fails Wp:NCORP, Wp:COMPANY. Zuck28 (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The majority of editors here are arguing for Deletion and the source assessment shows a lack of reliable coverage providing significant coverage. I don't see a rebuttal to this assessment or editors providing any additional sources that would demonstrate. Again, this is not "required" but providing three solid sources would have strengthened your argument that this subject is notable rather than just claiming the subject is notable without any support. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa

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

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOL. Simply being a flag bearer of a political party in an election does not inherently establish notability. I proposed a deletion few days ago, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ghana. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody I was the one who created the article and I did not remove the tag for deletion. Check your facts right before making an accusation. daSupremo

18:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaSupremo, I'm really sorry about that mix up. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine daSupremo

22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Describing her merely as a "flagbearer" (a vague, unrevealing term) obscures her significance as described in the article. She was the National Chairperson of the Convention People's Party. She won a Presidential Primary. She was also named Female Politician of the Year in Ghana. Her notability appears much clearer than this misleading nomination reveals. Spideog (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Spideog for your input daSupremo

19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Idoghor Melody, I removed the tag because the subject clearly meets notability guidelines, and I second what Spideog has stated in support of keeping this article. Describing the subject merely as a "flagbearer" significantly downplays her notability, as Spideog rightly pointed out.

I find it surprising that the nomination suggests the subject fails WP:NPOL. The guideline clearly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. While it’s true that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", this individual exceeds those basic criteria, given her prominent leadership roles and national recognition, including her election as National Chairperson of a political party and being named Female Politician of the Year.

I would kindly advise the nominator to review the relevant notability guidelines again. This article demonstrably satisfies both the specific (WP:NPOL) and general (WP:GNG) notability standards. Repeated nominations for deletion without fully considering these criteria risk discouraging valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All what I am seeing here is WP:BLP1E. 98 percent of the Sources provided in the article are about her campaign as the flag bearer of a party to participate in an election that she did not win. 99 percent of the sources lack WP:SIGCOV and cannot be used as WP:GNG sources. Only this vaguely discusses other aspects of her life which is also tied to being a flag bearer. Also, if she had won the highest National Award of Ghana, I know this article wouldn't be in AfD. She won a non notable award, given to her by her political party. I tried to check for process of the award and could not find anything on the internet. From the above, it is very clear that this subject fails WP:NPOL and the sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055
I’m surprised by how you reviewed this article according to WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. If 98% of the sources truly lack significant coverage, I wonder whether you conducted an independent review beyond the sources already provided in the article to assess the subject’s overall notability.
Additionally, I find the repeated misinterpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV concerning articles that clearly meet the criteria quite concerning. The subject may not have won an election, but WP:NPOL explicitly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" can be notable. It also clarifies that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", but individuals in such roles can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. This subject, with significant coverage and recognition in Ghana, meets these standards.
I’m genuinely curious as to how your reviews are being conducted because the criteria seem to be applied inconsistently, leading to confusion and frustration.
To conclude, I believe the notability criteria in this case have been misinterpreted, and these types of reviews are discouraging and potentially misleading.—- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 can you list three references that significantly covered the subject? Almost all her coverage both listed here or online are either about her ambition to become the president or receiving non notable awards. However, I came across a source that would have shown something better though seems like her CV with this statementAccording to her curriculum vitae... Yet only this cannot convince me to vote a keep. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, I’m not trying to convince you, and I won’t attempt to convince you to vote "keep." As I stated earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how your reviews are being conducted. I would kindly advise you, as a reviewer, to carefully revisit the relevant notability guidelines, specifically WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thank you. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 13:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 I think you are the one mixing things up here. You don't have to shift the post, provide the three references that meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV if you truly understand the guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, I am neither mandated nor obligated to provide the three references you’ve requested to prove my understanding of the guidelines. I’ve already shared my submission and reasoning for why the article should be kept.
As I mentioned earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how you review articles based on these criteria, and I’ve offered my advice accordingly. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12, you are not mandated nor obligated to provide the three references that @Ibjaja055 requested, but you can express concerns about their !vote on this discussion. Nice one! Idoghor Melody (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, it would be very unnecessary to reply to my !vote, especially if you're going to be saying what you already said above. The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Please don't BLUDGEON this process.Discussions are for building consensus, not for confronting everyone who disagrees with you.

NPOL#1 says that only when a politician or judge has been elected to hold aninternational, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office or when the politician is a member of the legislative bodies of these levels, whether they have assumed the office or not, would they be presumed notable. Not when the person was only a candidate of the election, the person has to win the election. This does not include winning a political party's primary elections. Even thoughleaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, they are subject to the same content policies as any other article and this subject fails the general notability guideline (see a detailed source analysis below).

NPOL#2 says thatMajor local political figures who have received significant press coverage (emphasis mine) can be presumed notable, and that means that the politician must have beenwritten about, in-depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, now, I don't see any of that in the coverages Nana Akosua has received so far, most of these sources are either routine coverages or cookie cutters. Below is a detailed source analysis of why Nana Akosua obviously fails the general notability guideline too.

EDIT: Also, the "Female Politician of the Year" award is a non-notable award.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to respectfully raise a potential concern regarding WP:CANVASS. While appropriate notification aimed at improving participation is encouraged, WP:CANVASS warns against selectively notifying users in a way that might influence the outcome of a discussion. In this case, I’ve noticed that several editors have joined the discussion with similar reasoning and viewpoints in quick succession. This has raised questions in my mind about whether notifications were issued in a manner fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, which requires neutrality and transparency when notifying users. I’m not making an accusation, and I recognize that notifying editors of discussions can be helpful when done correctly. However, to ensure a fair process, I would appreciate it if participants could clarify whether any notifications were issued and, if so, ensure they complied with WP:CANVASS guidelines.

Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This subject passes the basic WP:NPOL criteria and the general English Notability criteria. Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frimpomaa was an unsuccessful candidate, and the only coverage I can find of her is of her as a candidate. We do not keep these articles, but we are allowed to cover her candidacy on the election page, and a redirect there would make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unelected political aspirant who fails NPOL#1. There are no significant coverages in multiples reliable sources outside of her aspiration to meet NPOL#2. The awards won are not notable. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Marano

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

Non-notable history denier. Few sources on google search, all of them more than 5 years old; this raises the prospect that the subject's notoriety was short-lived and has not endured. YouTube channel has fewer than 20K subscribers; most videos less than 5 years old have fewer than 500 views. There is mention in the Reuters source of one or more videos with over 300,000 views; however, it is not on the YouTube channel, and no other reference to this purported video could be located. Risker (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the YouTube channel has a 16-year-old video, "Westboro Baptist neutralized by the Patriot Guard Riders" that has over 900K views; its SEO tags are "Patriot Guard Riders Westboro Baptist Fred Phelps gay military funeral army navy air force marines coast guard free speech propagandabuster propaganda buster tony WBC", several of which are heavily-searched terms. The article subject is not noted to have anything to do with either Westboro Baptist Church or the Patriot Guard Riders, in the article or in any reliable source that I could locate. That makes a single highly viewed video out of 2.6K videos. Risker (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article because I need time to gather enough information about him. Beside I'm using information from Japan's wikipedia to create it. Besides he's one of the history deniers we need to worry about and avoid for non-Asians Youtubers. Besides, you can help me by translating the source citations from the Japanese wikipedia and get this issue resolved. Koreanidentity10000

Hello, Koreanidentity10000. I see you have been adding information from another project. Please read this information on how to copy information from another Wikimedia project, because you're not correctly attributing that information. Remember to include the reference sources when you are copying over the information. If it isn't referenced in that project, then it should not be coming to English Wikipedia. I will give you time to sort this out, but right now with your changes, it is now a copyright violation with poorly referenced or unreferenced material. Since this is a biography of a living person, this is a fairly big deal. Risker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This is giving him free publicity, plagiarizing another Wikimedia project, and is so poorly written and formatted that it's irredeemable. Does it matter that he's left handed? And if so, why is this not sourced? I'm surprised that an editor with 10 11 years' experience would create this, and then ask for more time to fix it. Bearian (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TNT - not sure whether to keep or delete, but needs significant work. I think sourcing suggests some notability as a far-right historian of Japan. other sources with a few mentions of Marano [84] [85] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dileep filmography as unopposed. ✗plicit 00:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naale (film)

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

Two unreleased films that fail to establish notability. The first film may have been unfinished, which is why it is listed here as a short film [86]. The first film was also incorrectly listed on the 2008 list of films, but the sources were emerging in mid-December 2008 and a release seemed unlikely [87].

In an attempt to salvage, the film article I added information about the second unreleased film, all passing mentions.

Additional sources assessment table

Although, I find this database site dubious [90] Kailash29792 assured me of its usefulness for Malayalam cinema. It lists all of the released films and some unreleased films. While it lists the 2017 version as unreleased (first with a pink U and then with [ പുറത്തിറങ്ങാത്ത ചിത്രം ] (transl. [Unreleased film]), it has no mention of the 2008 film, so without a doubt that film was never released. Without proper sourcing, redirect to Dileep filmography, the only page where it is mentioned. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it for now. no indication of notability and yet unreleased. sources are only spreading buzz around whether it'll will release or not and other things. HeMahon (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 01:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rommy Sulastyo

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Two films are not on Wikipedia. Only source present is "top 10 pictures with sister" and her sister is not covered on Wikipedia either. Besides that, anything I could find is either not reliable or independent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more sources needed and roles are not mentioned. HeMahon (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really have the time to look into this in detail but the corresponding Indonesian article seems to show he could meet WP:NACTOR. Pinging a competent user:@Crisco 1492:, if you have time, can you let us know what you think, please? Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've reviewed what sources seem to be available, which include a short bio by a production house he's worked for; a brief overview from Tribun News, which I would expect to be WP:CIRCULAR given the general low quality of said publication; and the same profile at Pikiran Rakyat. None of the data provided indicates that he would meet the GNG or NACTOR; finalist (not winner) of Mr./Miss Jakarta 1994, a few soaps without articles, and some direct-to-TV films. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! -Mushy Yank. 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juboraj Shamim

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Debut director, all coverage about Adim only. Film might be notable, but the director isn't yet. Not eligible now, but could be in the future with more notable work, awards, or recognition. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Adim (page exists in Simple English) is notable then WP:NDIRECTOR might apply and he might be considered notable enough. One notable work is enough, especially for the director. Keep. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/bangladeshi-filmmaker-juboraj-shamims-adim-maps-the-basic-instinct-of-humans/article66648484.ece https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/internationally-acclaimed-film-adim-now-chorki-3600941 https://www.tbsnews.net/splash/adim-wins-2-awards-44th-moscow-intl-film-festival-489382 https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/345496/juboraj-shamim’s-‘adim’-coming-on-ott-platform https://www.newagebd.net/article/180552/i-stayed-at-a-slum-for-adim-juboraj -Mushy Yank. 14:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Directing an award-winning film can help with notability, but it alone is not enough for inclusion. The subject lacks significant coverage and depth. First 4 sources are again about the film and 5th features quotes from the director. It is surprising and worth noting that after the film's premiere at film festivals, Chorki bought the digital release rights in May and released it on their platform. However, the film hasn't attracted any critics or received reviews from independent secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, directing an award-winning film can be a valid path for inclusion per Wikipedia:DIRECTOR, depending on the award and/or the coverage that the film received, (please read the guideline again, it's not long), etc. Coverage seems to indicate that this director is notable enough. If there was a page about the film, I would consider a redirect, but there isn't. There are other sources, like https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/juboraj-shamims-adim-triumph-independent-filmmaking-3371421 https://businesspostbd.com/show-biz/adim-wins-big-at-new-york-2022-11-07 https://queensworldfilmfestival.org/films/the-instinct/, etc, all more or less independent but a decent albeit short article seems possible and acceptable. Thanks -Mushy Yank. 09:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with @Mushy Yank. This is the point i take this subject to write about. Thanks all for the opinion BTW. hopefully the article will survive to be in the main space. UzbukUdash (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). I only find one full-length independent review of Adim (in The Hindu), so it's not (yet) a notable film, and thus WP:NDIRECTOR is not (yet) met. Don't see a GNG pass either. (I'd say draftify but I don't trust editors not to push an article on this type of subject back into mainspace prematurely.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having reviewed the sources (heavy on primary source interviews and non-independent press releases) and searched for more, I can't take Mushy Yank's rosy view. I find myself in agreement with the nominator and Dclemens1971 that this is WP:TOOSOON. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources and lacks secondary independent sources. Fails WP:NDIRECTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um Natal Rastônico

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, and insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Brazil, and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack secondary sources or reviews and the cast do not appear to be notable actors. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has a significant online engagement following on YouTube and Brasil Paralelo's streaming platform (considered the 2nd biggest in Brazil). The main star (Rasta) is a famous comedian in Brazil. About "insufficient secondary sources", Wikipedia’s guidelines allow for the use of reliable non-traditional sources. Local coverage by producer companies can - as it has in similar articles - bolster the case. I agree that there are not too many sources, but leaving the short film stub seems more than enough for this matter, as it has done in many previous articles of films (some of them with little to no online engagement at all). Examples: De la coupe aux lèvres, Lel Chamel, Khouya, Cake Day, Charlie Ve'hetzi, Une Visite, En rachâchant, Keep_Not_Silent, and many others. And it's okay, because niche films and artistic projects are often retained if they contribute to a specific cultural or artistic discourse, or if they had a relevant online presence. So even if this film doesn’t meet WP:NFILM fully, it does meet the broader standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Ben Levi YouTube views or viewership from other platforms do not count. Also, notability is not WP:INHERITED. If an article is a stub and does not have the potential to be expanded in the future, it generally should not have a dedicated article. Junbeesh (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If online popularity does not count, then you might as well set up for deletion all Wikipedia pages about YouTube celebrities etc. And the article does have potential to be expanded though. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (weak to moderate) -- Not seeing SIGCOV. Agree that it fails NFILM more than it qualifies under it. The arguments against it (so far) are more-or-less invalid; other things existing (or not existing) is a not a reason to argue for (or against) deletion, each article should be considered in a relative vacuum. The main actor being "famous" -- according to an editor, at least, though I have no reason to doubt that to be true -- is neither here nor there. Notable individuals do not confer notability, as @Junbeesh pointed-out. "Online popularity" for other things doesn't matter; Again, other things don't matter, this article and this discussion does. If an editor feels another article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY, they are more than welcome to nominate it for deletion. MWFwiki (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article that indicates how or where this film was released to the public or what kind of reception it got. Short films may be notable, but they certainly aren't presumed to be notable. If the film has a "significant online engagement", there needs to be some indication in the article of how that engagement could be known to be "significant". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This could be popular but reviews are not being written about it nor are there any awards won to show the notability of the short film. I’m willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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