Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 4

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Chilean rhythmic gymnast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Chile. JTtheOG (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to have sufficient secondary sources to prove WP:SPORTBASIC. It's probably WP:TOOSOON. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:52, 11 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!} 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Canadian rhythmic gymnast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero coverage in even Canadian media, appears to be a non-notable athlete. Sourcing in the article is for gymnastic federations or competition results. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Couldn't find any strong secondary sourcing for this WP:YOUNGATH to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of engineering programs in the California State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic does not apepar to be independently notable as a grouping as there are few, if any, sources about this specific grouping of academic programs. I also have concerns about synthesis, the general maintainability of a listing as detailed as this one, and the specific format chosen in the present version (a table too wide for the screens of most readers). ElKevbo (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, Lists, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete per WP:NOT. Even if the topic were notable (which it doesn't appear to be), this isn't encyclopedic content. Robminchin (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is essentially a very high-quality WP:CATALOG, but a search for inherent notability behind CSU's engineering programs yields little to nothing other than just the programs themselves. Ranking websites, CSU sublinks, etc. don't justify notability, and those are just about the only things covering this subject. GuardianH (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I agree that the format is non-standard and actually annoying, but my reason for deletion is that this does not meet notability for a list article. Specifically, there are no independent or secondary sources that discuss this group, nor can I find one with a quick search. In Wikipedia, list articles have this very specific threshold for notability. Rublamb (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. This is a clear case of WP:NOT and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other articles like this for other university systems. Conyo14 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I found no significant coverage for this television special. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- (strong) -- per nominator. No SIGCOV and a single source is not enough, regardless.

MWFwiki (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Morse, Steve (1998-03-31). "VH1's Top 100 Choices Don't Rock". The Boston Globe. Factiva bstngb0020010915du3v00cpl. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.

     The article notes: "Picking a Top 100 in any field is hard, but it's especially hard in rock 'n' roll, which is prey to all manner of whims and prejudices. That didn't stop cable channel VH1 from trying -- and this time it didn't poll critics or fans. It polled 600 artists, who collectively chose the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Bob Dylan as the Top 5. Those names probably come as no surprise, but there will surely be smirks at some of the other 95 acts on the list unveiled on VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Rock &Roll." The show premieres tonight from 10 to 11, followed by additional one-hour segments at the same hour each night through Saturday. ... As a parlor game, it's fun to discuss the results. But the list could have been better, and so could the show, which succumbs to numbing repetition and is undone by Bacon's goofy rah-rah attitude and by an insipid female voice-over. Each winner is represented by video footage you've probably seen many times before and sometimes by self-serving concert clips from the VH1 archives. These are the "100 Greatest Artists" in a narrowed universe."

  2. Farber, Jim (1998-03-29). "Fab 4 Top 100 List". New York Daily News. Factiva nydn000020010918du3t006hj.

     The article notes: "Wanna start an argument? Name the 100 greatest music artists of all time in order.VH1 just dared to, basing its choices not on in-house opinions, nor on those of critics, but on the picks of current artists themselves.From Tuesday through Saturday (at 10 p.m.), the music channel will run five hour-long segments counting down the "100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll" in groups of 20. The installments center around archival footage of the musicians and feature quotes from those they influenced. ... The results include some surprises. The top three 1) The Beatles, 2) The Rolling Stones and 3) Jimi Hendrix deserve comment only in that the third slot isn't occupied by Bob Dylan, who instead landed at No. 5. ... Even so, perhaps the most jaw-dropping choice is The Police at No. 10, above Ray Charles (No. 12), Marvin Gaye (No. 14) and Aretha Franklin (No. 21). However much juice this defunct band commands, they hardly rate Top Ten status in terms of innovation or depth."

  3. Gieske, Tony (1998-03-21). "VH1 Presents the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 351, no. 47. pp. 20, 133.ProQuest 2393629738.

     The article notes: "Six hundred musicians from the VH1 "roll and Rollodex" voted up a list of the 100 all-time all-frantic ones, and tonight the bottom 20 are stitched into a kind of rock quilt, the first of five tumultuous sections. The list runs from bottom to top, Letterman-style. ... Fats Domino gets to do "Blueberry Hill" all the way through, with only a few adulatory interruptions, but he's one of the few who is permitted a whole number. And so it goes in this high-speed panorama. The songs, the artists and the commentary are perforce familiar if not banal, so it's all in the editing, which is fortunately first-rate in the Jet Ski style for which MTV is famous. Jet Ski or Osterizer. We're talking jarring juxtapositions like Robert Johnson and Diana Ross, Carole King and Madonna, Johnny Cash and the Ramones. In the second chunk, to be heard Wednesday, John Coltrane wins the posthumous title of honorary rocker, and Miles Davis gets in there eventually."

  4. Hay, Carla (1998-03-21). "VH1 polls artists on rock's greats". Billboard. Vol. 110, no. 12. pp. 10, 110.ProQuest 227110870. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Internet Archive.

     The article notes: "Amid the seemingly endless parade of awards shows and "best of" lists, VH1 has produced a unique music survey naming "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll." The acts included in the survey weren't chosen by critics or VH1 staffers but by other music acts. The survey results will be revealed in a countdown that premieres March 31-April 4 on VH1, and labels and retailers are already anticipating a sales boost for some of the acts as a result. ... The majority of those named in "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll" are artists who made their marks well before the dawn of MTV. Although consistent favorites Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and the Rolling Stones predictably have made the top 10, the survey also yields results that may be surprising to some people. David Bowie is ranked higher than Presley, and the Police are the only post-punk/MTV-era act ranked in the top 10. In addition, some acts who don't fall neatly into the rock category are on the list, including Bob Marley, Johnny Cash, Aretha Franklin, and John Coltrane."

  5. Piccoli, Sean (1998-04-03). "Business as Usual: Irrepressible Punk Rage". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

     The article notes: "Rating the greats Off the subject of polemics _ but not too far off _ my always outrage-able Sun-Sentinel colleague, television critic Tom Jicha, spotted the music cable channel VH1 picking a fight of another sort this week: the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll video-thon. VH1 says its 100 Greatest were selected through a mailing to more than 600 rock 'n' roll musicians. Not all results are surprising: The Top 10 includes the Beatles (1), Jimi Hendrix (3), Bob Dylan (5) and James Brown (6). But it gets interesting. Positing Dylan as a runner-up to Hendrix, in fact, may be the least argumentative of the rock panel's picks. ... The five-part series concludes with a pair of one-hour broadcasts, 10 tonight and Saturday, hailing the final 40 contenders through interviews, concert footage and video clips."

  6. Hesse, Monica (2007-09-29). "On Cable, Shows That Count Down To the Lowest Common Denominator". The Washington Post.ProQuest 2827611958. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

     The article notes: "A decade ago, Jeff Gaspin, VH1's new vice president of programming, suggested that the channel do a countdown show -- a Casey Kasem-y thing with musicians, not critics, picking the rankings. In 1998, VH1 premiered "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll": a five-part series going from No. 100 Paul Simon to the list-topping Beatles, with everyone from Nirvana (No. 42) to Gladys Knight & the Pips (91) in between. So many artists. So much anticipation. So much Kevin Bacon, who hosted."

  7. Ivry, Bob (1998-04-25). "Poll Takes the Pulse of Rock's Greatest Acts". The Record. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

     The article notes: "lanagan sent ballots to hundreds of musicians, asking them to put together their entire Top 100 "greatest artists" list no more specific than that and received more than 100 back. ... Another sign that a new generation of rockers voted in the poll is the low position of the King of Rock-and-Roll Elvis could muster only a No. 8 ranking. ... Another mild surprise is the dearth of female artists in the top spots, especially in the era of Lilith Fair and boom times for women singer-songwriters like Jewel, Shawn Colvin, and Sarah McLachlan. Aretha Franklin was the top woman, at No. 21, and Joni Mitchell, another idol of all three of the aforementioned singers, was second in the women's category, at No. 32."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notability has been shown. This can be considered withdrawn if MWFwiki changes their vote to keep. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdrawn MWFwiki (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An article about a purported, and certainly long defunct, educational "institution" (at best, a company). There are no reliable sources about it, and its website is long dead (and subsequently usurped by various advertisers). Wayback has an archive of its site from 2016 here. There it claims to be an institution of higher education, yet doesn't mention the names of any staff or give any sign of a campus, phone number, or anything else to suggest it's anything more than a trivial website run by mystery people.

There are various claims made about it in the article's history, but with poor to no reliable sources. So I think this was, at best, a non-notable training company selling courses over the internet, with questionable accreditation. It's certainly defunct now. It wasn't, and isn't, notable in any way, and the article isn't supported by any kind of reliable source.

Note that an earlier (but no better) incarnation of the article (created by user:Styledesigncollege) was speedied in 2008. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Education, Schools, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NCORP, and after searching, the best sources I could find are Pinterest and Groupon. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5P Global Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT, WP:ORGDEPTH. Too hasty after the Pope's visit. Expect more action from the organization. This article has been deleted on idwiki based on WP:UP/WP:XFD Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Indonesia. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 21:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Having analyzed the sources, I concluded that the subject is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and therefore I fully agree with the nominator. --Taking off shortly (talk) 08:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

All the sources Fail Wikipedia general Notability guidelines. The first source is an interview with an unreliable blog, the second source cannot be verified though from the URL, it is also an unreliable blog. The third source is the subject's website. The fifth source is a puff piece and the last source is also the subject's website Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is pretty close to containing no assertion of notability at all so far. Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete IT. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: More crypto nonsense, nothing for notability that I can find in any sources. The one source Vanguard used in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable secondary sourcing to prove notability under WP:ANYBIO. One of the only sources that might be argued as "credible", from The Guardian (Nigeria), sounds a lot like ChatGPT: "In a world where business extends beyond profit, Kingsley Kobayashi’s journey exemplifies a commitment to societal well-being and a vision for a brighter, more inclusive future". I believe Brown envelope journalism might be at play here, a practice heavily entrenched in Newspapers published in Nigeria.Mamani1990 (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. In 2025, everyone knows the problems that Wikipedia has had with its sources. There are lots of Nigerian politicians, entertainers, and entrepreneurs who are notable, but they get into reliable sources without any payola or selling crypto. If your defense of this article is practically a quote out of WP:GRIEF, then you are not winning. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see WP:FAILCORP being mentioned but no guidance on where the article content should be Merged to so I wonder if this is the policy point the editor meant to refer to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are largely primary, republished press releases, or dubiously reliable finance sites that fail to provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Similar results on GNews, and ProQuest is largely some sponsorship coverage, which falls under trivial coverage. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet NCORP. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see one single reliable source, Yahoo Finance. If you eliminated the weasel words and stubify it, then you would be left with nothing but original research. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Yahoo Finance source is syndicated content, not their own. It was originally from https://www.retailbankerinternational.com/news/ebc-financial-group-debuts-on-laliga-stage-with-fc-barcelona-partnership/?cf-view ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.Keep it meets WP:SUBSTANTIAL and WP:FAILCORP Troublemasher (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Inadequate depth of coverage to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Notice of a collaboration with FC Barcelona has attracted attention but what editorial comment there is seems to replicate what the two partners say. Rupples (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎

This AFD was closed by the nominator, TheWhole151. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails to meet notability guidelines, with sources referenced in the article having little relation to the content of the article. Parts of the article appear to be original research, such as current employment, which are not mentioned in attached sources.

Miles' YouTube channel is not unique to the platform, as there are a plethora of creators on YouTube who make similar content regarding traveling by public transportation, and are not included on Wikipedia. TheWhole151 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, Transportation, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — the vast majority of other transit creators were at least somewhat inspired by Miles, and he’s been doing it for 10+ years. Also, why on earth is original research bad?!

Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 22:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources from the original article mentioned that his work would have inspired the work of others. Article fails notability from WP:CREATIVE for this reason, with no source picking up this "inspiration" you mention. Few larger creators are on Wikipedia, e.g. Geoff Marshall in this field, with notability from other accomplishments outside of just having a YouTube channel. The amount of time he has been on the platform (~5 years) plays no role into notability. Original research is also prohibited by WP:NOR, and as mentioned, the article included statements and claims not backed up by the provided sources. TheWhole151 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: None of the arguments for deletion are factually correct. Ten of the sources are substantial independent coverage about Taylor and his productions; that's a clear pass of WP:NBASIC. There's only one unsourced paragraph, but it would be easy to cite from the existing sources. The argument that his employment is uncited is incorrect:As of 2024, Taylor works for the MBTA as a transit service planner is in fact discussed in the given source: "My job as a service planner [for the MBTA] is like my dream job." Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Reed 51 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC) — Bart Reed 51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep per Pi.1415926535. I was initially skeptical as to the quantity of secondary sources but there are far more than I initially would have thought. Emma Lexi Triphora (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There is significant coverage of the subject in several major news publications (Boston Globe, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer) but it isn't for a singular event. Clearly meets GNG. SounderBruce 03:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per SounderBruce. Requester should review Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance and not delete citations while tagging before bringing any future articles for deletion. --Michael Greiner 03:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, per Pi.1415926535 and SounderBruce. SJ Morg (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Whether or not there are individual unsourced statements in the article does not factor into the overall notability of the subject, which is where this discussion should really be focused. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 11:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Someone's abortive, defunct, entirely non-notable summer hobby project. No coverage whatever in any reliable source (the generic name of the project means searches will return unrelated to this project). Article creator, and sole substantive contributor, is the project sole contributor. PROD removed by creator without comment or improvement. Non-notable COI spam. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 19:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable software. Jfire (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No claim of notability. This article would fall under A7 if it was not related to software. Brandon (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, and the "official website" is a dead link. Also fails WP:NOTGUIDE. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - literally made up on summer vacation. Everyone here (including me) makes mistakes, but if your 70 edits over 15 years are this hot mess plus repeated spamming, then you're not here for the Project. We are not your free web host. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:ALS, no evidence of notability. The beauty pageant organization existed from 1968 to 1975 (lacks factual evidence), with 5 representatives sent to Miss World, two of whom were semi-finalists and one placed as 4th runner-up. While this might be covered in offline sources, given India's success in Miss World, the coverage to support the organization's credibility for Wikipedia is questionable. I reviewed few sources, but they are all unreliable and lacks SigCov. Fails WP:GNG. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Beauty pageants, India, and Haryana. — MimsMENTOR ^talk 15:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. BLP vios can be addressed via proper merging. Star Mississippi 16:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL since he never won an election, nor does he satisfy WP:GNG, the Anadolu source within the article describes his as "a little-known politician." Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir if the last proper version is considered ([1]). QEnigma talk 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QEnigma: That version is a WP:BLPVIO because a major portion lacks sources, and in the portion that does have sources, they are inaccurately represented. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [2] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [3], [4], [5], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep or Selectively merge and redirect from the last good version of this article. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bearian: That version is a WP:BLPVIO because a major portion lacks sources, and in the portion that does have sources, they are inaccurately represented. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir using sourced information from the existing article also drawing on the sources mentioned by Goldsztajn. Suggest that {{R with possibilities}} should be used for the redirect as it seems that more sources might come to light so as to make the subject notable in their own right. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most eaten meat in the world by countries and territories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unsourced, no evidence that this meets WP:NLIST. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this count as a source demonstrating the collation meets NLIST? [6]. I expect there are others. But I can't bring myself to !vote keep because it s semi plagiaristic to just take someone's collation and throw it on Wikipedia (surely the collation attractes database right or similar?), and because what we have here is unsourced and would have to be fully checked, and because it is horribly overlinked, containing almost no unwikilinked text. It's a list though, so meh, the list saviours will be along shortly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The total absence of sources is the most important objection to this article, but even if that were fixed (a huge undertaking) serious problems would remain. Would it deserve an article? Do the results have any general consequences? Moreover, without claiming any expertise in the matter, apart from living for significant periods and eating in several countries (UK, USA, Canada, Chile, France), I find some of the classifications very surprising. Athel cb (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comparing it to the list I found above, yes. Some big errors in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Something feels fundamentally unsound to me about placing countries into exclusive groups based on which one of a couple categories was higher than all others in that country. We'd never create a similar list based on the most common ethnicity or religion in a country, for example; even if meats don't (always) have the same implications, it's still hard to justify squashing a complex distribution - which doesn't even necessarily follow national boundaries! - down to a single choice for "most eaten". Omphalographer (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced, fails WP:NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. The page mentioned above is not much more than an infographic, though it is at least sourced. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total original research and WP:TRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it's simply completely unsourced. --SimmeD (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources whatsoever and no explanation about why some particular meat is eaten somewhere. It's just an indiscriminate list that isn't even verifiable. JIP | Talk 22:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ajf773. (Greetings from Commons, where the images uploaded by this article's creator are also up for deletion.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Seems this user has added some uncited maps in articles like Fruit and Languages of Europe as well (which are now removed). Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:19, 9 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. Star Mississippi 16:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There is only WP:ROUTINE coverage and last years signining to Solihill Moors documented in Solihull Observer as WP:BLP1E, there is no WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG.  Note: Not to be confused with the Gaelic footballer of the same name. CNC (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With the exception of one local news source, the others are not independent, so insufficient independent coverage to pass the GNG. Rupples (talk) 07:45, 11 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. Star Mississippi 16:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Norfolk Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Lists, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. 2 items not enough to be called a list. Teraplane (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Only 2 non notable items. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unsourced BLP article of an athlete on Rockdale Ilinden FC that has incomplete sections. A google search yields no indication of notability. For the record, there may be a COI issue here as Tp767, who created the Thomas Petrovski article, has several edits here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, while I am not yet nominating them for deletion, other possibly non-notable athletes on Rockdale Ilinden FC have poorly sourced articles or articles that are otherwise in bad shape that use excessive primary sources, including but not limited to Mathieu Cordier, Blake Ricciuto (decent shape but lots of unsourced info), Ricardo Rizzo, Bai Antoniou, and Alec Urosevski (decent shape but lots of primary sources). KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The ACC is a sports conference. The fact that these universities have business schools, or medical schools, or engineering schools is utterly irrelevant to who their athletic teams play, especially with changing conference membership. Although there are related academic organizations that span these schools, it's rather embarrassing for the article that none mentioned have to do with the business schools. Reywas92^Talk 18:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Big Ten business schools CrazyPaco (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would also vote to delete that. Reywas92^Talk 23:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would also vote to delete that one as well if it were nominated. Jjazz76 (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails to meet notability for a list article because it lacks sources that discuss this collection schools as a group. Also, organizing business schools by college athletic conferences makes little sense, especially since these are mostly graduate schools whose students are mostly not associated with undergraduate college athletics. Rublamb (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per previous comments and the illogical mixing of a sports conference, with a list of academic units. Same goes for the List of Big Ten business schools mentioned by User:Crazypaco. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Ten list is not included in Category:Lists of business schools so I didn't see it when I was considering this nomination. I'm not comfortable nominating it until this discussion has concluded as I don't want editors to think that I'm targeting these lists specifically or trying to "flood the zone" with nominations. ElKevbo (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is a well-sorted list but it doesn't have the inherent notability to justify an article on its own. In addition to the other comments, searches for sources just reveal the program themselves, and the widespread, secondary independent coverage generally required for the subject doesn't seem to be satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the ACC having expanded into an "Academic Collaborative" does go some way to explaining what appears at first glance to be organization-by-athletic-conference, there isn't any indication that this is actually notable as a collection of business schools. Robminchin (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I have not found reliable sourcing that considers the business schools of the Atlantic Coast Conference as a group. Searches of journalism, scholarship, and books (the list of results here is misleading; checking the results shows that the hits are simply cases where "Atlantic Coast Conference", "business", and "school" are mentioned in the same book, not as an actual reference to the business schools of Atlantic Coast Conference institutions) provided no evidence this grouping of businesses is noteworthy. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable or covered in reliable sources. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 08:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An article on a hospitality firm, recently edited to become an article in its own right after previously being a redirect to the article on the founder (no longer a suitable redirect target). Searches find routine listings, a recent item announcing user-submitted awards, and a corporate restructuring announcement, which are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, South Africa, and United Arab Emirates. AllyD (talk) 12:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to the overwhelming amount of weasel words and promotional content and the difficulty of fixing this meds. This is a whitewashed version of the founder's article, which notes several controversial issues. Sort of reminds me of another prominent South African businessman who gained his first few millions from Apartheid and his next billions from the Middle East. Just saying. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all citations are stats pages and mentions, nothing significant. Shinadamina (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The corresponding Russian article has a few decent sources, such as [[7]] and [[8]]. We probably need to look a bit closer into sources from Russia here to determine if the subject is notable or not. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Why are you nominating/voting if you can't do a one-minute search?
  Here: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. (The last one is about her as a coach and about Zahra Lari who she coaches.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Why are you voting if you can't be troubled to acquaint yourself with the provisions of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV? Your first link isn't about the subject, but is an interview from her (which is explicitly debarred from counting towards notability, as the subject's own words is not a reliable source) about her coach. Second link: another interview of the subject. Third link: another interview of the subject. Fourth link: another interview of the subject. Fifth link: another interview of the subject. Sixth link: another interview of the subject. Seventh link ... you got it, another interview of the subject. Not a SINGLE ONE of your links is a third-party, independent reliable source, and I strongly recommend you review the requirements for the same before serving up more link salad.

 Ravenswing      06:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• • Here's another source:
    "Тренер Трусовой, почти партнерша Жубера, резонансная Иевлева: кто соревновался с Туктамышевой на ее 1-м ЧР (2008)". Sport24. 2022-12-26. Retrieved 2025-01-08.
    There is a short biography. --Moscow Connection (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Short" is right: three sentences about her skating career. Ravenswing 06:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • 7 sentences. (Long sentences. 2 paragraphs.)
      Did you come here to support Bgsu98? First, you appeared at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Bgsu98 mass-nominating articles for deletion and violating WP:BEFORE. Then, you came to the nominations where I commented. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Ahem. I have participated, by one editor's count, in over 4700 unique AfD discussions. You seem to be more focused in attacking editors who say or do things you don't like than in seeking genuine, reliable sources to buttress the notability of the articles you seek to save. Would you like those editors to start openly questioning your motivations and agenda? Ravenswing 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Update. I found a short biography of hers and expanded the article a bit: [16]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [17] ← Here's another news article dedicated to her. Yes, there's just one sentence, and then a quote from Ievleva herself. But the sentence is one-paragraph long, it says: "This year's Russian Championships silver medalist, Alexandra Ievleva, took the 11th place at the European Championship in Warsaw, which is the best result among all the debutantes." --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Another interview: [18] (Championat.com). And another one: [19] (Sportbox.ru). --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Another interview: [20]. (There's more than just her own words, there's also a short introduction.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Another interview: [21]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Here's a biographical article on a website named Women's Sports (Женский спорт): [22].
  The text is not taken from the Russian Wikipedia, it is completely different and is well-written. The website seems to be some kind of a web magazine made by a company named Ilin Group. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ooof. Let me see if I can make this more plain. Interviews of the subject cannot count towards supporting notability. Two: A single sentence does not count towards the required "significant coverage." This just can't be that hard to grasp. It doesn't matter if you throw up half a hundred interviews, namedrops, routine match results or casual mentions. 0+0+0+0+0=0. This really is the time for you to read WP:SIGCOV, and not WP:REFBOMB us with any more irrelevant and non-qualifying links. Ravenswing 12:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails significant coverage criteria. As noted above the new suggested sources are not significant by current Wikipedia standards.

  Shrug02 (talk) 00:43, 11 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!} 00:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable sportscaster. Deletion suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Spain. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Sports, and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing in the article establishing notability about an unremarkable broadcasting career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As always, the key to establishing the notability of radio and television journalists isn't to reference the article to their staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers — it's to reference the article to third party content about them and their work in unaffiliated sources. We're not looking for evidence that he exists, we're looking for evidence that his significance has been externally validated by sources that didn't issue his pay stubs, but there's no evidence of the latter shown here. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable variant of Newtons method based upon a single primary source which has only a self-cite, created by a new editor. There are hundreds (thousands) of variants, only the main ones used in major codes and well cited merit inclusion; Wikipedia is not an optimization dictionary or how-to guide.

Draft:Collinear gradients method was declined at AfC by KylieTastic on December 29th. Author then copy-pasted it directly into main. Originator ignored WP:NPP notability etc comments, continuing to make minor expansions. Since original editor has contested AfC, it seems that draftification or PROD are inappropriate so straight to AfD. (N.B., possible COI of editor being author of the single source.) Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, (1) individual detailed algorithms aren't wikipedia-notable based on a single primary reference; they need to be widely-used and discussed in secondary sources before they are appropriate subjects. So it's WP:TOOSOON at least. (2) we have a duty to our readers to write our articles in the style of an encyclopaedia, not in the style of a primary maths publication. The article is currently written in a way that gives no context, and is incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already a subject-expert. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this is a reference article, not an encyclopedia. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Based on a research paper cited only once by its own author. Setting aside the poor expository style, which could plausibly be fixed, this does not pass WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth independent (and preferably secondary) sources, such as textbook chapters about this method. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source is software for demonstrating the method's features and comparing its effectiveness with many well-known methods. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable, fails WP:GNG. I removed the second source to the rar with complied code that could be any malicious software. KylieTastic (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for falling very short of our standards about when a topic is article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 16:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Deriannt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Subject easily meets WP:SPORTBASIC with a couple dozen sentences of independent coverage here, not including quotes of course, as well as a half-dozen sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While it would be nice if there were more sources, the sources uncovered by JTtheOG contain the needed coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC as they provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's too bad this skater couldn't follow up that coverage with any meaningful results. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Baynews9 is mostly an interview with very little independent coverage, and a local ice show is not significant. The notability is far below that of a local principal, chief firefighter or physician. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Retired in 2014 after 7 appearances in J3, unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability for GNG. CNC (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poorly sourced BLP with no claim to notability. I found Gekisaka and Ameba, but these count for little more than database sources. No evidence of having the significant coverage for WP:GNG and doesn't seem to have kicked a ball since 2017. Japanese Wikipedia has nothing to offer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm glad more people are looking into the heap of Japanese football substubs. Geschichte (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This seems to obviously fail notability. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No reliable sources, fails GNG. CNC (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG - has not played since 2016 RossEvans19 (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not worth a 7 day discussion. Geschichte (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing notable about this player per GNG. CNC (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 16:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested draftify but with no apparent improvement. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC both require multiple sources showing significant coverage. The only decent source that I can find is Allez Les Lions, which is a fairly standard transfer announcement regarding her move to the second French tier. I am not sure if Allez Les Lions is WP:RS as I couldn't find evidence of fact checking or professional journalism. Aside from that, I found Feca Foot, Chretiens and La Depeche, all of which are clearly trivial mentions. Since all we have is one borderline source, I can't see how this meets the notability criteria. Turkish Wikipedia had no decent coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Not enough WP:BEFORE was done especially under Fadimatou Kome for this nom as the subject is an international Cameroonian player who plays for a team in the Turkish Women's Football Super League. According to the BBC (and here and here) she competed in the Women's Africa Cup of Nations in 2022. She is mentioned in other local sources including Cameroon Tribune (here and here, here), as well as in La Dépêche du Midi (here). FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found all of these in my searches but didn't consider them for source analysis as they are all trivial mentions, for example La Depeche is just a passing mention in a match report followed by two squad listings. Some of them are only squad list mentions, like this. I'm not subscribed to Cameroon Tribune but none of the reports look like they address Kome in any significant depth (i.e. multiple sentences about Kome). Which of these sources show SPORTBASIC is met? I'll @GiantSnowman: in any case as more sources have been added. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, which sources are meant to be significant coverage? GiantSnowman 19:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman and @Spiderone WP:SPORTBASIC:Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.. The article about the transfer is solely about her. One BBC article mentioned she received a red card during a game. There are also plenty of databases sources because she is a FIFA recognised senior international who played for Cameroon during major tournaments. I have improved the article with above sources and more.

Given her age, you might argue it’s too soon but regular international football players articles are typically kept. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability (not a policy) FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that transfer coverage is considered WP:ROUTINE - and the essay you cite clearly states that it "has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports)". GiantSnowman 20:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it is not a policy but I have never a saw an article about a senior international FIFA being deleted. I understand women football is not as popular but 19 mentions is alot of mentions even according to WP:SPORTBASIC also not sure how 19 sources are routine including 3 beloved BBC.FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes was deleted only a few months ago and he had 3 senior FIFA caps. Even 100 trivial mentions doesn't necessarily equal one piece of significant coverage. BBC is great but the sources are a trivial mention of getting sent off, with no further elaboration, a squad list mention and another squad list mention. None of these articles explore Kome in detail and, in each case, there are several, several other players mentioned at various points in the article. At no point is Kome singled out for special coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORTS2022 paved the way for a change in the notability criteria whereby having caps and/or playing in a professional league was no longer a 'free pass'. Since then, there have been several articles deleted in which a player has been capped. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Zaki, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allyson Jolicoeur, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelino Da Costa Fernandes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamberto Gama. Every week, footballer articles are deleted that contain nothing better than transfer announcements or match reports in which the footballer is briefly reported as scoring a goal, getting a yellow/red card, giving away a penalty etc. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you being consistent but dismissing 19 sources as trivia and routine is a bit unfair. I also understand that players who do not play in the Western world can be hard to find sources for, unless you dig in their native language but that is why we have this debates so people can provide evidence.

I provided 19, I will leave it to that. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Cryptocurrency and crime#Exchanges. Star Mississippi 16:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The crypto exchange with sources only based on 1 event - stealing of 200 mln usd. Literally all 5 sources in the References are only about the same event. Not ready for Wikipedia and not enough reliable sources to establish notability per WP CORPDEPTH 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found this article from Arabian Business which was published before the September 2023 hack and provides a few sentences of coverage about the subject. If the consensus is against a standalone article, I support a merge/redirect to Cryptocurrency and crime#Exchanges (where Mixin is mentioned) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. It's sourced, but cringey without any context. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ramzan Ali Miya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable writer. No RS found. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per above. Whilst there is over 400,000 Nepalis in Qatar, the vast majority are migrant workers and not permanent residents. Since Qatar only grants permanent residency to about 100 people a year, the percent of Nepali permanent residents could be as low as 0.025% of that. So being president of the Nepal-Qatar Friendship Association does not seem to be a good enough claim to notability. Sahaib (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails to meet criteria Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:49, 11 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 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for academics or professionals. I cannot find independent, reliable coverage about their work or achievements Cinder painter (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Psychiatry, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. New to this. What is required for independent reliable coverage? I see links to edu and gov websites and NBC news. Please help me understand what our criteria is. I am deeply interested in supporting wiki. Infoseeker89 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Director position at a large institution is not enough for WP:PROF#C6 (head of whole institution) nor #C5 (a step above full professor, such as distinguished professor). Psych is a high-citation field so the double-digit citation counts I found on Google Scholar do not appear to be enough for #C1. No other evidence for notability is apparent. Infoseeker89, you appear to be asking the wrong question, "how can I get this person to appear notable". The correct question for this discussion is "is this person already notable by our standards, or not", and sadly, it looks like the answer is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as expressed clearly above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete: As per the comment of David Eppstein. Taabii (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per David Eppstein. The subject is an assistant professor, thus he is not tenured. We almost never find that non-tenured professors are notable. We are not an electronic portfolio for tenure review. FWIW, I didn't get tenure. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 FC Chernihiv season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Another season article with no prose on a season so far down the Ukrainian pyramid that it is highly unlikely to have any notability per WP:GNG. In the unlikely event that something noteworthy did actually happen in this season, it could be summarised at FC Chernihiv, which currently lacks meaningful prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Clearly stated reasoning. Lacks meaningful prose and is attached to a stub article to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail to reach WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:NTEAM) criteria. QEnigma talk 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - edits have been made since AfD but there are still no independent, non-database sources showing significant coverage of the season so please proceed with deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 11 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 12:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 FC Chernihiv season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A season 'article' with no claim to notability. Chernihiv played in an amateur, regional league during this season. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG has been presented by the article's creator. Long-term AfD consensus on Wikipedia has always been that we do not have articles on seasons at this level unless there is clear evidence of significant coverage. Even if something noteworthy did happen this season, it could easily be summarised at FC Chernihiv instead, an article that currently has almost no meaningful prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Clearly stated reasoning. Lacks meaningful prose and is attached to a stub article to begin with. Anwegmann (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail to reach WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:NTEAM) criteria. QEnigma talk 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - an edit has been made since AfD but there are still no independent, non-database sources showing significant coverage of the season so please proceed with deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:54, 11 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 12:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Played only 5 minutes of football in the second tier of Ukraine before disappearing. None of the references come close to meeting WP:GNG. The best source found in my own searches was Cheline, a routine contract announcement, most of which is copied from his club's Facebook page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 12:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Agreed on all counts. As with many Chernihiv and Chernihiv-adjacent players, this one clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can this please go through WP:PROD? Geschichte (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could but PROD is only a soft delete and I would prefer a hard delete. This user persistently recreates Chernihiv articles - see, for example, Oleksandr Rudenko. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Found no coverage, fails GNG. CNC (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. K. Dakshinamoorthy Sthapati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG for WP:BIO on WP:ARCHITECT. I noted that the article mentions awards and projects but these lack independent and reliable coverage (WP:RS). Most sources cited are primary or fail to provide in-depth analysis. Also, the tone of the article appears promotional (WP:PROMO), contrary to WP:NPOV. Nxcrypto Message 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: article violating WP:NPERSON and WP:GNG as there is a lack of independent coverage in RS. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to FC Spartak Trnava as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 16:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

He only played one professional match for Spartak Trnava before disappearing over ten years ago. News sources from my search motivated him from being the son of a former footballer, falling under WP:NOTINHERITED. The articles of his football relatives (father Igor and brother Boris) also have not provided significant coverage since those were created, so if there is no consensus, I would suggest either "redirect to Igor Bališ" or "delete". ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I did some quick research, and no sources were found to qualify him for a Wikipedia page. I did find this article, but I don't think it would make a difference. Aona1212 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That source is just a passing mention on squad list: Krakovany vs. Siladice 0–4. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Igor Bališ appears to be a notable former Trnava player. We can simply mention that his sons Denis and Boris are also footballers in the family section of his article. Newklear007 (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG. He played 1 match in the second tier league, the Ukrainian First League, before spending the rest of his career in the second tier of Georgia. Searches in Ukrainian (Гіоргі Парпалія) and Georgian (გიორგი ფარპალია) failed to yield anything significant, which is unsurprising as he barely had a professional career. All I could find was coverage on similarly-named players, like Giorgi Papava and Giorgi Kvilitaia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Georgia (country). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Agreed on all counts. As with many Chernihiv and Chernihiv-adjacent players, this one clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fail to reach WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. QEnigma talk 18:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable per GNG, found no coverage. CNC (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Compared to the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), info in the article seems somewhat trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers lists three criteria for the notability of integers. I believe this article should likely be kept because it meets at least two out of three of the criteria.

1. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in what is considered an "interesting mathematical property" of a number; I'll leave that to the folks at WikiProject Numbers.
2. In Chinese culture, some pronunciations of 250 are used as an insult — "二百五" in particular. This is non-trivial, since it has implications on corporate decisions — for instance, the Gulfstream G280 was originally the Gulfstream G250 but was renamed due to concerns about the original name's implications on the Chinese market. See this Fortune China article and this FLYING Magazine article for details. This was originally in the article, but was removed as "trivia" — I believe the G250 example sufficiently demonstrates that it is not.
   • Chinese has plenty of other number-based slang, such as erbaiwu, or “250,” which means “idiot” The New Republic article on Chinese slang
   • The only problem with the number 250 is that you need to remember that the number represents an idiot. If you speak to a Chinese person and say the number 250 it will indicate that you are calling the person you are speaking to an idiot. Being called 250 in China is an insult. Forbes Advisor guide to the Chinese number system
   • Istilah ini digunakan untuk menyebut seseorang yang bodoh atau tolol. Konotasinya negatif, jadi berhati-hatilah saat menggunakannya, umumnya digunakan dalam candaan antara teman dekat. ->This term is used to refer to someone who is stupid or foolish. It has negative connotations, so be careful when using it, generally used in jest between close friends., according to Google Translate. Post from the Dept. of Mandarin Language at the State University of Surabaya
   • Coverage from Chinese state-owned media on the history of the term
3. On his website, Erich Friedman writes, "250 is the smallest multi-digit number so that the sum of the squares of its prime factors equals the sum of the squares of its digits." Additionally, in David Wells's Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers, he writes,${\displaystyle 250=5^{3}+5^{3}=13^{2}+9^{2}=15^{2}+5^{2}}$is the second sum of 2 cubes which is also the sum of 2 squares in more than one way. [Thayer]

Feel free to point out mistakes in this analysis; I'm quite new to AfD and still learning! If you do respond, please ping me so I can read through your feedback. Best, Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]

Courtesy ping for @Beland — I can hardly ask for one myself if I don't ping you too! Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested more opinions from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers and restored the item on Chinese slang. -- Beland (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (1) This is a round enough number to be culturally significant. (2) We actually have sourced information about one particular kind of cultural significance in the article. (3) For small enough numbers that are not individually significant, we round them to tens or hundreds and summarize the rounded numbers in a single grouped article. For this number, rounding it would put it at 250 (number), where we already have it.(4) The listing by Wells described above is explicitly given in WP:NNUM as a criterion for notability of individual numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes the relevant standard. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. Also, there is a lot more to add; see United States Semiquincentennial. Bearian (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Compared to the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), info in the article seems somewhat trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Number is significant outside mathematics, especially in U.S. politics as it is the number needed to win the electoral college. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I think being a small example of a harmonic divisor number, the culturally significant number of being a way to describe a 3/4 turn, and the application to US politics make three interesting unrelated properties, enough for WP:NNUM. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looks like there's enough to go on for a short page, and we might be able to say more (I found [23], for example). XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. It's a good place for our core readership to research the United States Electoral College. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 13:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not sure anything in the article establishes that this is an interesting number based on the linked guideline. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets criteria 1 and 3 of the guideline. Peter James (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The permutation property is not really about 213 as a number. But I think the Levine sequence property and the square-sum-of-distinct-factorials property are interesting, and this number appears early as an example of both properties. That's not quite the three interesting properties asked for by WP:NNUM, but that's why my keep is only weak. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To the properties already cited, we could add this (answer to a combinatorics problem), this (appearing early in the nontrivial part of a sequence) and possibly this (appearing early in an easy-to-define but hard-to-calculate sequence). XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems to have been created by IP editors for promotional purposes. Tagged for notability. -- Beland (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only verifiable notable thing about this is the size of the project in terms of lines of code, which means nothing. No independant sources can be found. I tried looking around for people asking for support (which would give an indication re: the number of users) but all i could find was their first party forums full of literal spam Themoonisacheese (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Beavis and Butt-Head. ✗plicit 13:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Like Beavis, this article has no WP:SIGCOV at all per WP:BEFORE. Most of the sources talked about the film Beavis and Butt-Head, instead of the characters. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge per nom. Most sources really don't separate this character from the plot, let alone from the other main character. This doesn't have distinct WP:SIGCOV for its own article. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation where the essential details can be covered at the main Beavis and Butt-Head series article. Any additional plot information can be covered at the individual works. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Shooterwalker. Series is notable but there's not really much discussing Butt-Head independently of the series, or even Beavis himself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for the reasons I laid out at the Beavis AfD. Note that the current hatnote on this page for butthead should be transferred if the redirect is created. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to be consistent with Beavis. Neither character has WP:SIGCOV, as the nomination stated. Jontesta (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tagged for notability for over 4 years, seems to have been (self?) created for promotional purposes. -- Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article entirely lacks secondary sources. If there is any notability here, it would appear to be exclusively around the subject's involvement in FSFE and a separate article is not warranted. Brandon (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tagged for notability for over a decade. -- Beland (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.56-56 Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability, thin on sources since 2013. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please do not delete the 56-50 Spencer. This rifle and cartridge originated during the Civil War period. Mr. Spencer took one of his rifles to the White House and showed it to President Abraham Lincoln. The president was so impressed he asked Mr. Spencer to come back the next day so that the President could shoot the rifle. They set up targets where the Lincoln Memorial is now located. The President was so impressed that he ordered the Army to order as many as could be produced. All guns have import history about and around them. It is important! 2600:1700:165E:810:F0C5:536E:3122:EE2 (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We should not delete on the absence of citations in one version of the article, but as to whether such sources exist or not. Although clearly a dead-end in firearms design, the Spencer rifle and its cartridge was historically important (arguably of course, given that this is a firearms topic) as the first self-contained metallic cartridge for a repeating rifle. Even with such argument as to whether the Henry or the Spencer came first, and what the definition of 'first' is as to workability, this was clearly an important weapon and thousands of them were used in the Civil War. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  agree - keep- the spencer carbine is a historically important firearm 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No need to for deletion. Let's keep working on the article – and not lose information. Best, --Chris.w.braun (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.22 BR Remington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability, thin on sources. -- Beland (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Verifiability TYPEINFO (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged for notability for 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nese Server 2008 R2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT according to my searches. The creator also seems to have some sort of WP:COI with NeseOS Corporation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seems to be a non-notable software project, couldn't find any evidence of notability or meaningful secondary coverage. MCE89 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, no sources found. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:GNG, nothing usable found. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]