Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 29	January 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Alex Shewmaker

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

Non-notable actor/comedian. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't show anything of value, and there isn't any coverage from reliable sources on this subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. Could even be eligible for speedy deletion under A7. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Limited coverage, this was all I could find [1]. It's an interview. Otherwise, sourcing in the article is confirmation of performances at comedy clubs. Long way from meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if WP:GNG could to be met, I believe that the author might have an undisclosed Conflict of Interest which would prevent them from creating this article. This is based on the author's username and from multiple past edits of repeatedly adding Alex Shewmaker to the Elk Grove High School (Elk Grove, California) article over the past four years. I note that the author has a COI notice from today on their talk page from another editor wondering the same (notice was triggered by creating this draft). Zinnober9 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, California, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Naama Levy

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

The article was created by a sock puppet, relatively late (on March 8, 2024, five months after the October 7, 2023). Naama Levy is a Israeli soldier. WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applied here. 251 Israelies were kidnapped by the Hamas, and there were not articles about everyone of them. I removed some text by the BLP and NOT criteria, but it was restored. The "media coverage" was not relevant. There are other En WP general, not biographical, articles which dealt with the issue. The biography of a living person is not needed here. The subject is not a leader nor a public figure, but a soldier. Please see also Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli. _Dgw|Talk 23:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with the nom, we don't require an article for each and every person that was taken... Rather limited career section, most of the article is about the captivity. Person does not appear notable, I don't see how being one of several hundred kidnapped is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, suitable for a list entry, nothing more. Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has received almost 332,000 pageviews. This is the one with the blood coming out of her pants, second only to killing of Killing of Shani Louk and possibly the Kidnapping of Noa Argamani in terms of impact on the public. Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enormous interest in this person per above mention statistic. Well cited as well. Clearly notable from what I can tell. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page happening to be created by a user who is a sockpuppet, or being created five months after the event happened is absolutely not good justification to propose deletion. Many pages, especially ones within WikiProject Crime, are created a while after the event happens for WP:SIGCOV and sustained coverage. This article has clearly proven that with sources from just a few days ago. Her kidnapping has been a topic of significant discussion (her page had 200k+ views last year) and should not be deleted. jolielover♥talk 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Levy is among most prominent of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas, and has been featured in articles in CNN, New York Times, BBC, Reuters, and numerous other media outlets. As the article notes, her kidnapping came to symbolize sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attacks, and feminist activists protesting sexual violence have dressed in bloodied sweatpants like those worn by Levy in the footage of her abduction. The page views speak to the enormous interest in her case.

Selfgyrus (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Belleville, Indiana

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

Possibly the second least reliable source used in GNIS updates would be state highway maps (NOAA charts are worse and fortunately very little-used). The spot in question is next to a now-abandoned PRR rail line west out of Cartersburg, and it may have been a rail spot, but tthere is just nothing there on any map. I can't image why the Indiana DOT felt the need to label an unimportant T intersection next to the tracks which appear to have just been taken up, but in any case I find no real testimony for this as a settlement. Baker seems to be just reading the name off the map as there was certainly nothing there when he wrote his work. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker on page 244 says a "village" that is literally north of Belleville, Indiana, but gives no dates. The 1895 Lippincott's should have this on page 2009 with the other "North Something"s, but does not. It has Belleville proper on page 620, also giving the name of the railroad that it was on. There's no North Belleville anywhere in the Arcadia Publishing books on Plainfield (ISBN 9780738594484) and Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970).
Looking backwards in time, however, the Indiana State Gazetteer and Shippers' Guide for 1866–67 has North Belleville "on the Terra Haute & Indianapolis rail-road, 1 mile north of Belleville" but does not say what it was. The 1854 Baldwin and Thomas A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States has North Belleville on page 831 and says that it was a "village" located "19 miles W. by S. from Indianapolis". So Baker and the contemporary mid-century gazetteers agree that this was a village on the railroad. It's in a 1856 Lippincott's as well, but has dropped out of Lippincott's by the end of the 19th century, whereas Belleville has remained listed, despite the implication of Baker and our Belleville, Indiana article that North Belleville was where the railroad was re-routed to.
There definitely was a village there, and it was definitely on one railroad. The gazetteers confirm it; but they give almost no detail, not even the usual listing of some buildings, and the histories (I also checked Hadley's 1914 History of Hendricks County, Indiana.) are mute on it entirely.
Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a social para in a newspaper from 1915 (The Reporter-Times, Martinsville, Indiana) [2] that says a family called Garshwiler were moving to their new home in North Belleville. Before that date, there are reports that a station was opened there in 1890 [3] (if that's the same North Belleville - it doesn't help that there were also places of that name in other states!); a man died there in 1881 [4]; someone was injured trying to jump onto a train at North Belleville in 1886 [5]; and someone was killed there in 1896 while riding on top of a night express train that went under a bridge [6] (those 3 are pretty definitely the Indiana North Belleville). So it sounds like it had homes, a station and a bridge over the railway line. Not much help, sorry! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruidoso River Museum

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

I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this museum at all, and it looks like it may have permanently closed according to social media chatter. The best coverage is passing, promotional mentions like this, which in my view is not sufficient to support a redirect to Ruidoso, New Mexico. This article may be referring to the same museum. Suriname0 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New Mexico. Suriname0 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The museum has closed and some of their artifacts have been sold off. I've updated the article to reflect this. There are a number of other defunct museums on Wikipedia so it's not a problem retaining it as an artifact. Nayyn (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Nayyn, I have no problem with the fact that the museum is closed. My concern with retaining it as an article is that I can find no WP:SIGCOV. In my opinion, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG... and is not close to meeting WP:NCORP. (I doubt the RoadsideAmerica.com article is reliable, and it looks like the most in-depth coverage.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete probably. It looks like the museum was at two locations, the one pictured in the current article and described in the 2008 press release, and I found a Ruidoso News article from 2013 [7] about a move to Fox Cave. That article is significant coverage, but hyperlocal. It is the same museum as in the Roadside America source the nom found [8], which is also SIGCOV - but is it a reliable source? I'm also not sure about the reliability of Atlas Obscura, which has a short article [9] about Fox Cave including one para about this museum. Maybe if you add those to a para in the New Mexico Magazine [10] and the para in True West Magazine [11] found by the nom, it would add up to WP:BASIC - if the sources are considered reliable. If this article is kept, the info about the Fox Cave location will need to be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's possible we could just merge or redirect to Fox Cave instead then, with one sentence about it briefly being used as a museum. FYI, Atlas Obscura is user edited and thus generally non-reliable (see WP:AOPLACES). Suriname0 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clue (information)

AfDs for this article:

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

The page doesn't cover anything that isn't already under evidence. All the page does is go over different ways a clue can be used. Pretty redundant if you ask me. GilaMonster536 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was a weak keep in the last AfD in 2024. I have no idea what I was thinking, but I was extremely stressed IRL. I'm still stressed but also blessed (insert joke emoji here). Seriously folks, this is what most laypersons and high school students think of as evidence or proof, or as hinting towards a solution, as opposed to the legal concept that "something that tends to prove a cause of action or criminal case." Both of these articles can exist in uneasy compromise. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to evidence per WP:OVERLAP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

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

Singular instance of an award, should merge to the main article's page, Collier Trophy Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. BilletsMauves^€500 11:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This same article, with a different title, 2011 Collier Selection Process was deleted via PROD in 2012. Nayyn (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not sure why it is a "Speedy Keep"? Nayyn (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a deletion rationale, you are advocating for a merge. AfD is not the right venue for this. BilletsMauves^€500 19:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this same article with a different name was previously deleted, the rationale for that deletion was WP:PROMOTIONAL Nayyn (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Overly detailed information, a merger is not needed. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Naqawi

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

This article is about the lineage claiming descent from Ali al-Naqi called "Naqawi" in transcribed Arabic and "Naqvi" in transcribed Persian/Urdu. It is not to be confused with individual historical figures or modern people carrying this as a family name ("al-Naqawi" in transcribed Arabic and "Naqvi" in transcribed Persian/Urdu)

Sources in the current article are primary (al-Razi), unreliable, or insignificant (Gori 2003 is cited for something else in the article and may not even mention the subject). The page has recently been completely rewritten, and this older revision (when the article was still called Naqvi) cites more sources. Most of these are unreliable, but the following three may be of some interest:

Maqsood Naqvi, Syed (1979), Riaz-ul-Ansab (The Garden of Lineages, apparently a book on Arab lineages (ansab); given his family name perhaps not quite wp:independent)
Abbas Qomi, Muntahal Aamaal fi tarikh al-Nabi wal Aal (The Utmost of Hopes regarding the History of the Prophet and his Family, a book which may touch on Hashimite Arab lineages, including the Naqvi/Naqawi lineage)
Ahmed Ali, Syed (1991), Hazrat Imam Ali Naqi (The Excellency the Imam Ali al-Naqi, apparently a book on Ali al-Naqi, the claimed progenitor of the lineage)

Unfortunately, apart from their less-than-stellar wp:reliability (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is unclear given the obscurity of the publishers; in academia these would probably only be used as primary sources), all of these were only cited in the article for the narrow question of how many sons and daughters Ali al-Naqi himself had, and it is unclear if they actually contain any information on the later Naqvi/Naqawi lineage, which the article is actually supposed to be about.

I have been looking for sources a bit, but have found nothing. I suspect that someone versed in Urdu and Arabic literature on this subject may come up with sources satisfying WP:GNG, but if and when that person comes along they can always recreate the article.

Unless other editors are more successful than me in finding reliable secondary sources, I believe it would be more beneficial for the time being to turn Naqvi into a disambiguation page listing all the notable people called 'Naqvi' that are currently listed in the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Royalty and nobility, Islam, Asia, and Middle East. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. We are not a file cabinet. We are not a genealogy website (the Mormons and Moslems have their own websites). We are not your family Facebook page. We have never published original content. My concern with making a family name page is that it will turn into a recurring problem without any level of protection. Bearian (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Tawfik

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

No sign of passing WP:NACADEMIC. His citation numbers are very low. Being a IEEE member is not impressive (they haver over 400,000 members). This article was created by a WP:CITESPAMmer [12][13]. Badbluebus (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, and Egypt. Badbluebus (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Delete. With large numbers of coauthors on publications I do not find sufficient evidence of the independent achievement needed to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Provisional/Currently Delete -- Like @Xxanthippe -- Looked through the WP article as it is and didn't see evidence of passing WP:PROF -- but editors who add material not currently in the article can change my mind. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if we take out all the primary sources created by him in the references, and move them to the external sources, there would not be much left. Again, ping me if you find anything else: either secondary sources and/or independent sources. Bearian (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see little sign of WP:NPROF, and WP:NAUTHOR would tend to require more than one book (in addition to requiring reviews, which appear unlikely at best). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dial (online journal)

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

This fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. There's no significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Almost all the information comes from the journal's own website, and the only sources cited are its official site [14] and a passing mention [15]. There's no real media coverage, historical significance, or independent analysis to show that this journal is notable. Most likely still a small group. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christer Holloman

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

Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is more or less a lazy nomination; what notability guideline does the subject not meet? Not whether the nature is promotional. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Whether a cursory search was made should also be evident.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This page was created 15 years ago by a SPA and tinkered with, but not improved much since then. I tried to fix it and gave up. (I've done more than my share of rescues in the past 3 months, so don't give me side-eye.) He might be notable, based on a couple of searches that I did. I actually don't think it's too promotional. Two more thoughts: (1) are LinkedIn links no longer used in External links? and (2) since the SPA hadn't been active in over 10 years, who would take over to userfy this page if needed as an ATD? Bearian (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felix The Cat Kept On Walking

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

I had redirected this, and would suggest this as the outcome of this AfD. Neither source is significantly about the short film, and no better sources seem available that give this film more than a passing mention or a database treatment in lists of animated shorts or in more general Felix the Cat sources. This, with a short plot summary, is about the most extensive source I could find. In books specifically about Felix it gets nothing but a mention[16] Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as in the nom. I must thank both of you this morning; Fram's nomination at Herostratus's suggestion gave me exposure to an old film I'd never seen. I had a friend (long since passed) who was a huge fan of Felix, and as a child I was frequently exposed to many of these shorts on TV in Honolulu. As much as I'm happy to see these films available and in the public domain, I concur with Fram's source analysis above. I'm interested to see if Herostratus can find more direct detailing. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but, on further consideration, let's rename and rearrange -- let's make the article be about the song, which seems more notable (and came first), so rename the article to the song name ("Felix Kept On Walking") and move the film stuff down to the bottom (or delete it, but why).

As a song It meets WP:NSONG I would say (the song is notable if it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...This includes published works in all forms", and "all forms" would include advertisements and chinaware and toys and t-shirts and what have you I think, and there are plenty of those (([17]) and some even still today ([18], [19]). and it meets 2 of the 3 supplementary bullet points (which are not proof of notability, but are worth considering and de facto considered pretty much sufficient I think): "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", which they didn't have charts in the 1920s I don't think, but the song was clearly a hit which would have at least made the Hot 100 surely, and "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists", which we have a number of artists notable enough to have their own articles covering it.

It is true that there aren't any reviews or articles on the song, but this was 100 years ago, there weren't even music magazines then, and things were generally different then, and so of course not; I think we need to be a little flexible here or else we are going to end up overemphasizing recent material just because we have the sources for it rather than it being actually more notable, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says not to do that.

And on top of that there's even a whole idiom based on the song (obscure and obsolete, granted, but still) -- "well, Felix kept on walking" probably something like "Well, another day in paradise" or something. I don't think we should throw info like that back into the darkness.

Whether to leave the stuff about the film in a short section at the bottom is a judgement call, something for the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your extremely expansive reading of WP:NSONGS is contradicted by the explanatory footnote about the "non-trivial" nature of the published works: ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. " Advertisements, chinaware, t-shirts, ... are not reliable sources and thus don't count towards meeting WP:NSONG. A deviant art page similarly is of no value for this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi Fram. I am glad that you are here with us, hope things are going well for you here.

OK. So, there are three things to untangle here for sources, reliability, notability and standing.

So, considering the pictures of the banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts, of course these entities do exist and we can rely on that. Yes, there is an (infintesimal) chance that maybe for one of them somebody decided to deploy their time, effort, and advanced photoshop skills to make a fake photo of a non-existent object, for some unfathomable reason, I suppose. That there is a pattern of this (which no one has picked up and reported this highly amazing, very high-effort conspiracy involving a number of people) is about as likely as the moon landing being a hoax, so we can dismiss that and agree that the photos of the tchockes and other stuff are indeed photos of actually existing objects. All entities are reliable for their own contents. A website of a photo of a Felix the Cat doll is reliable for that photo. Maybe not for other details like when and where it was made and by who, but for the photo, which is what I am referring to. As you know, many sources are reliable for some of their content, and unreliable for others. Whether I would use these sources in the article is a different issue.

So all these are real things. Do they indicate notability? Well of course they do. People don't banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts etc.for obscure entities. They just don't is all, because that would be silly and a dumb business model, and if they did that by itself would 'probably confer notability I think. Having one or two or three of these doesn't demonstrate notability. The plethora of tchotchkes we do have does.

Again, we are not going to have magazine reviews of the song because the world didn't work like that then. We also don't have magazine reviews of 17th century chanson. Doesn't mean anything.

So we have reliable indication of notability, done. If we can't use those sources, that's a problem, but it's a technical problem, the main fact that the entity is notable, so it's our job to find a way to keep the article if we can. Notable entities should have articles. (Anyway, we can use these sources. If one wants to play WP:DMV it it could be argued that rule 17, paragraph 4, subparagraph 6, bullet point 3 (or whatever) proscribes that, and then we'd have to dig up a contradicting rule (most rules have 'em) but really just say WP:NOTBURO and move on.

Anyway, doesn't matter cos 1) the song was covered by many notable artists, and 2) was surely up there in the "chart" of record sales and sheet music sales (they didn't play records on the radio much yet I believe), altho any figures are probably lost to history. This seems self-evident and the burden would be on editors trying to disprove it, I would say; and I don't think that any song that meets both these criteria has been deleted, or if so, not many and those cases would be mistakes, because of course we don't want to 404 readers searching such a notable entity when we already have an article. And really what rules are supposed to codify common good practice, and that trumps a rule that tries to hold the dam against the river of common good practice. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can't be sure if any of tchockes with the phrase preceded the song or not. They very probably came from the song, but we can't be sure, so I don't thin we should even mention. Since works of art are their own regs, all of the article is ref'd (technically) even tho there's only two refs at the botton. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I WP:HEYed the article, so it is now mainly about the song, so we are looking at NSONG and so forth. It's basically a different article, so I think the best next move, Fram, is to close this AfD, then can retitle the article (to the song title), and if you want you can make a new nomination of the song. I wouldn't because as a song it's not likely to be deleted, and if it is that would be unfortunate cos it's as good as very many of our other song articles, and no gain in causing unfortunate things. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this article was reworked such that it is mostly now about the song... does it pass WP:NSONG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-Rohilkhand War

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

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mr.Hanes Talk 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Draft (to fix sources - needs some cleanup, and content is not encyclopedic and too verbose etc..) - not quite familiar with this, but others familiar with this can see if a page like this might provide some historical continuity (from my quick read on Kingdom of Rohilkhand) Asteramellus (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be a better option. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this article as much as I could, multiple references have been mentioned in paragraph, I am going on a break now so I will not be able to participate in the discussion, My only suggestion is that you can either move this page to draft until I fix it completely,Jaspreetsingh6 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy so it can be worked on properly. Bearian (talk) 10:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiber

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

The article fails WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Italy. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose, Flash Fiber and FiberCop are two separate companies, and also meet the eligibility requirements. InterComMan (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, article reliance on primary sources like the company website and promotional materials are failing to establish sufficient notability or societal impact. Nxcrypto Message 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ORG. Just to be clearer, all of the sources in the article are primary sources. A few such sources are okay when secondary sources verify that the company is notable. The biggest problem with finding new sources is that the company is defunct. I'm not sure why this page was created in the first place, but the new user might be mistaken about what we are. We are not an electronic version of a gazetteer. Bearian (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joppa, Indiana

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

OK, so here we have a weird one. The actual spot consists of a couple of 20th century houses and a garage across the road from one of them. Whether you would call this a town is a matter of opinion. Searching, however, lights up like a Christmas tree, because this spot was the subject of an urban legend which c;ained that there were Spooky Things happening there. The rumors centered around a church which isn't in fact here; it's somewhere in the Clayton-Belleville area. I haven't found its exact location but you can read the story in this local news report, and this one reorting that the building had been burned down for the second time. Of course Google ranks the rumors higher than the debunking but what you gonna do. Anyway, this is a spot on a map, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Baker Hoosier place names book has this as a "village" on page 181. Despite the claimed dates, there's no such Joppa in the 1895 Lippincott's, however, nor in several other gazetteers. Nor does the 1885 History of Hendricks County, Indiana have anything. The Arcadia Publishing book for Plainfield tantalizingly mentions a Joppa Road, but has nothing specific. An 1899 USPS directory lists a Joppa post office in Hendricks; and everything else that I've found only confirms that post office and provides essentially zero information about it, because it's largely contemporary sources giving a postal address. I'm unable to confirm what Baker claims, including the claim to a second Joppa in Hancock County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not found calling places "villages" to be particularly reliable. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - In late 20th and 21st century sources, yes. Baker is from 1995. But 19th century sources pre-date the mid-20th-century shift in the U.S.A. to calling most things cities. Lippincott's is reasonably self-consistent and systematic in its use of "hamlet", "village", and "town" and in its "post-" variants of those. The reason to suspect Baker is not that it is from 1995, though. It is that in most other cases so far there has been supporting evidence from elsewhere to be found. In this case, I can only find supporting evidence for the post office; not for the "village" that Baker claims, nor for the other Joppa that Baker has in the same entry. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Vancouver Island Championship

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece. The same with the ECCW Hardcore Championship until their non-deleted pages. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification add on, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stay# – I agree with 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B with a lot of things and when it comes to this page. Plus I agree with him when it comes to the ECCW Hardcore Championship page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cagematch isn't enough. Cagematch it's a database that includes every championship in the world. Cagematch doesn't prove notability. Third party sources focusing on the title are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possiblity - The page probably needs an additional citations for verification add on to it and then the page is perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B2AB:CC1:5F45:1A6C:9750:65A (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Hardcore Championship

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay – Added a Cagematch in the external links so hopefully the page should stay. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification add on, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stay# – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece until it's a non-deleted page like 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B said when it came to the ECCW Vancouver Island Championship non-deletion page argument which whom I agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cagematch isn't enough. Cagematch it's a database that includes every championship in the world. Cagematch doesn't prove notability. Third party sources focusing on the title are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possiblity - The page probably needs an additional citations for verification add on to it and then the page is perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B2AB:CC1:5F45:1A6C:9750:65A (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, these were replies to the user, not my overall argument. glman (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like something which should be included in the encyclopaedia, but may not be notable enough for its own page. Maybe a merge would be best, but I don't really have any suggestion on what would be a good place to merge other than I don't really want to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA keeps track of this stuff. Conyo14 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that means. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without going too deep into it, sports stats are more than likely better kept and up to date on the primary source than here. As for the merge target, I suppose List of NCAA Division II football programs could work? It might be overkill though. Conyo14 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all - we have plenty of primary sourced stats tables throughout this website, and it's kind of the point of Wikipedia. The only question is whether it's worth a standalone page. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; we're yet to reach a consensus on whether this should be kept, deleted, or merged on elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Castro

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is more references that I found and he's been recently being more talked about, he's a well known guy in my state. I believe that he at least qualifies for a stub at most. There are New York Times and New York Posts standalone articles about him, and the region I'm living in (New York City), there have been a lot of local press covering him and filmmakers are what I write about and I believe this article should be kept as I don't see how this violates notability. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Issacvandyke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

of course, if you would like to chat about how this article could have been written better, I am open to all discussions :) Issacvandyke (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Just from researching the topic I found over 15-20 Clothing brands writing about the topic and a few standalone articles about the topic which have been added to the article from major news sources. If you ask me, the topics film is released in nationwide theaters (USA) in around a week, I say Keep. Filmwizardtx (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Filmwizardtx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards Delete. I could not find a source that meets WP:GNG and warrants this as a stand-alone article. So far, most of the sources I see are about Lake George (film). I don't think there should be a redirect since the film is unreleased and there is questionable notability of both articles.
@Issacvandyke: Please link the New York Times articles you mention; I could not find one searching for "Hamid Castro" or "Hamid Antonio Castro" on their site. Also, NYPost is generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:NYPOST). - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per User:Whisperjane's source analysis. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and while a redirect would be a useful WP:ATD, his film doesn't look like it passes WP:NFILM either. Obvious sockpuppetry, but ineligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth opening a SPA, if you are interested - they've been editing for a while and as far as I can see, it looks like one would pop up as efforts to create an article were declined at AfC or elsewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is already open, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His film is releasing in less than a week from now, I say we wait for for a few weeks to see the press that comes to from it, it has been increasing in press recently. is the article written in the best format? maybe there should be some improvement. but, I believe that there is enough for this stay on wikipedia. Ulyssesgranted (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Ulyssesgranted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want to note that all of the keeps so far are from new accounts, and most are SPAs. No one has yet linked a single source, so I would like to remind new editors that establishing notability on Wikipedia requires you to have reliable sources that back up your claims. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the part where they say to wait makes sense. Draftify until release (I would have waited until release to initiate this, but that's just me). And, btw, the NYP is considered "marginally reliable source(s) for entertainment coverage"; not usable "for controversial statements related to living persons" but NOT "generally unreliable". (I'm not saying it's great journalism.) Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right about the NYP; I was trying to simplify my comment by saying "generally". To clarify, the NYP source in question looks like it falls under WP:NYPOST instead of WP:DECIDER, because it is not entertainment coverage, as far as I can tell. The NYP's site lists it as a "Health" article, and not under any of their 6 entertainment categories. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a very valid question to ask here is whether or not this individual would be notable outside of their film (assuming that will pass NFILM by the time the AfD closes). Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

Plex: Routine database listing at best. Cannot establish notability.
AMC Theaters: Also a routine database type listing. Releasing into theaters doesn't make a movie automatically notable, no more than releasing direct to home video makes a movie automatically non-notable. Cannot establish notability.
Production company website: Primary source, cannot establish notability.
Thrillist: This is better, but part of the issue here is that the bulk of the article is written by Castro himself. There are a couple of paragraphs not written by him, but this does make me question whether or not this would be seen as a primary source akin to interviews. Now, I don't necessarily think that interviews are incapable of establishing notability, but it's a pretty widely held opinion on Wikipedia that interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability. Given that the paragraphs are an opening to Castro's article about himself, I would say that this would be a very weak source at best and at worst, a primary one.
NY Post: As another has said, this is a weird area. Only the entertainment section is considered to be usable, but even then it's only marginally usable. This was published to the health section, not the entertainment section. It's not being used to back up anything controversial, which is helpful, but the fact still remains that this isn't an entertainment article. It's an article written about Castro as it pertains to his fitness business. At best this is another very weak source and honestly, I am extremely uncomfortable with using the NYP as a deciding factor in establishing notability.
Podcast: This looks to be a WP:SPS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I looked to see if the show or its host (Vincent Lanci) were cited as RS by other RS, but there's nothing out there. I have to assume that this is a self-published source that cannot establish notability. Even if it wasn't, it's an interview and as such, would likely be seen as a primary source anyway. We could probably use this to back up non-controversial claims, but we can't use it to establish notability.
Tapology and NYU athletics: These cover Castro's collegiate athletic career. I'm not hugely savvy with NATHLETE, but offhand it doesn't look like he passes WP:NCOLLATH. These could be used to back up basic info, but not establish notability.

Now, having gone through this, it looks like there are only two sources that could potentially be used to establish notability: Thrillist and NYP. The first is almost entirely written by Castro, making it more or less a primary source. The second is questionable as it's labeled as a health article rather than entertainment. Even if both were seen as usable, they're both extremely weak sources. To me, this doesn't establish how Castro is independently notable outside of the film, assuming that it passes notability guidelines in the future. This means that if the film does eventually pass NFILM, there's a choice to be made: have an article for the director or have an article for the film. There's not really enough notability to justify two articles, again assuming that the film eventually passes NFILM.

I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but offhand I'm inclined to argue against notability here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That didn't take long. What's in the article is what's out there. I even looked with Newspapers.com to see if there was any older sourcing. This guy just isn't independently notable of his movie, which is of questionable notability itself.

So... assuming that the film passes notability guidelines, the question here is whether or not we should have an article on the film or the director. In cases like this, I'm generally more inclined to retain the creative's page. My justification is essentially this: it gives us a place to cover any of the person's future work as well as other things that never quite tally up to passing GNG/NBIO on their own. This not only gives us slightly more content, but can also pull double duty in that it sometimes can help prevent people from creating articles on borderline or non-notable topics. We have one decent article instead of a handful of questionable ones.

However that's assuming that the movie passes NFILM once it releases. If it doesn't, then this will be a delete or draftify on my end because what we have is extremely weak. I'll go ahead and wait for the end of the week to make an argument for or against, just in case the film pulls a Hail Mary on us. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HHamidcastro - many of the accounts who have commented above are confirmed socks of the article's author. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's awfully wordy for an encyclopedia article, but not so terrible that WP:TNT applies. I edited down one paragraph. I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, based on the mediocre sourcing. The upcoming film might be a hit, but we are not a collective psychic. My experience over almost 18 years here is that if Sockpuppets swarm a discussion, it's probably a losing proposition. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, userfication is a valid result. Bearian (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bidule

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

Fails WP: GNG. I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. The review that exists in the article is quite nice, but notability usually requires multiple reliable sources, and I couldn't find any outside of the review that is already cited in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city ^‽ 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Cochran

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

I couldn't find sources that pass WP:GNG through a WP:BEFORE search and I don't think his roles are significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR. Suonii180 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bibus

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

Fails WP: GNG. I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. There is a link to a review in the External Links section, but it appears that the link has rotted and the Wayback Machine doesn't contain a readable copy of said review. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city ^‽ 19:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (Bini song)

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

The song does not demonstrate any notability and does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NALBUM. There is also no indication that it will pass any of the criteria in the future. I have already raised the concern with another editor and the original page creator, who does not mind the AfD in the article's talk page. Freedom Wall (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of songs by Bini WP:MILL cover of a common Christmas song. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of songs by Bini per WP:ATD-R and WP:MILL. It didn't perform significantly in Bini's discography besides being a cover of the Christmas carol. I did a quick search on the Internet and can only find news coverage about its release, no further discussion from the news sources has been published since then. (The same reason I replied in the article's talk page) AstrooKai (Talk) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of songs by Bini per all above ROY is WAR Talk! 01:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 01:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik and Pogrom

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

Nonnotable defunct personal website of a Russian nationalist with catchy title --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Mahmud

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

Devoid of coverage (even mention) in any WP:RS (also checked Urdu sources), the BLP clearly fails WP:GNG. Actually, the article as seen from the page history was created for a Malaysian footballer with some similar name but was changed (by a block evasion) to this personality possibly known for youtube channel in Pakistan. MŠLQr (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. MŠLQr (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also tried searching for the subject in Urdu, Hindi, and English, but I couldn't find anything significant. While the subject has written some books, they clearly fail to meet WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for searching into Hindi also. MŠLQr (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect against re-creation - neither the athlete nor the "personality" are notable. Changing the subject of an article and block evasion are technically independent reasons to delete. Salt to avoid repetition of this problem. Bearian (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Bhartiya

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Sources are mostly about subject's death. Greatindianeditor (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep: see WP:Obituaries as sources. Significant coverage on the page, to which one can add: https://www.thequint.com/opinion/tarun-bhartiya-obituary-filmmaker-who-defied-ordinary https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/obituary/tarun-bhartiya-shillong-filmmaker-khasi-culture-activist-death/article69142830.ece https://scroll.in/article/1078461/tarun-bhartiya-1970-2025-the-bird-that-flew-the-coop (No idea about what this website is, fwiw) https://countercurrents.org/2025/01/tarun-bhartiya-leaves-us-who-epitomised-social-liberation-in-diverse-spectrums/ https://morungexpress.com/tarun-bhartiya-the-bird-that-flew-the-coop https://theshillongtimes.com/2025/01/26/noted-filmmaker-tarun-bhartiya-passes-away/ https://dy365.in/north-east-stories/renowned-filmmaker-and-activist-tarun-bhartiya-passes-away-at-54-15331 Etc. Also a 2020 bylined article in The Hindu (on the page). Received and returned (in 2015) a National Film Awards ....That alone is enough for WP:ANYBIO pass ["The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor"]. -Mushy Yank. 19:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Literature, Photography, Politics, and Meghalaya. -Mushy Yank. 19:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 20:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any reason not to keep. Obituaries are fine for sourcing. The Indian media has fallen down, but it's screaming for help. There are several sources that go into detail about his life, careers, awards, and death. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Brishty

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable model/actor, no main roles, second runner-up of non notable Veet-Channel i Top Model 2012, a before finds virtually zero independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bangladesh. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illewi

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

The only evidence I can find for this place is mentions of its name in the DPLA [20] and Smithsonian [21] [22] [23]. These only situate it as a place in (western) Okpella but give no further information. It doesn't exist in the sources for List of villages in Edo State, which are seemingly comprehensive. Other-language Wikipedia articles shed no further light.

I also haven't found it named on a map. The article for Imiekuri gives a location which is unnamed in Wikimedia Maps and named Imiakebu in Google Maps, with nowhere named Ilewi (or similar) nearby.

The first Smithsonian source I listed show that such a place exists or existed in the area, but I'm not sure that's enough evidence to judge it as a "populated, legally recognised place" per WP:GEOLAND. Ligaturama (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ligaturama (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 17:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot verify this place either. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Leave it as a soft delete in case. Bearian (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Enslin

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

No secondary sources that I could find to even consider WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Has only played one EFL Trophy match and the only reference from RS is being in that starting lineup. Am also OK with incubating in draft space for the near future, as subject is likely to become notable sooner rather than later. CNC (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Nuñez

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

Biography of a U.S. Air Force chief master sergeant fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I found no coverage of this individual beyond articles on USAF sites ([24], [25]), which are not independent of the subject. As far as I can tell, being a Command Chief Master Sergeant is not an inherently notable rank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Puerto Rico. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, completely non-notable. Mztourist (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Rex Idaminabo

AfDs for this article:

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

The available sources are interviews, announcement containing trivial mentions, primary sources closely related to the subject and the two sources from Forbes are not reliable. Mekomo (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mansouri Davar

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

Non notable athlete in MMA and BJJ. Doesn't pass WP:NMMA or WP:SPORTBASIC. His accomplishments do not warrant a wikipedia article. The Phuket Beach games and the Asian Indoor Games do not qualify to meet GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HaxeFlixel

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

Was WP:DRAFTIFYed twice and declined through the AfC process but was moved back to the mainspace by the article creator so coming to AfD. All the references are either WP:PRIMARY sources or are WP:USERGEN. Does not meet notability with no mention in any secondary sources that I could find. cyberdog958^Talk 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Computing, Internet, and Software. cyberdog958^Talk 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find no evidence of notability for a corporation. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of the Three Beautiful Raptor Sisters, and the Prince Who Was Made of Meat

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

Plenty of Google hits on blogs and lists which confirm this exists, but only passing mentions in reliable, independent sources. Can't find a specific guideline for short stories but doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Orange sticker (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Orange sticker (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugo award nominee will have been discussed in combination with the other nominees in appropriate RS articles. Even if we can't find them because they're on paper or paywalled, I'm sufficiently confident that the sources exist based on its nomination for a major award. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The story that won in the same category that year doesn't have an article, nor many of the other nominees or winners from other years. I'm not disputing the notability of the author, just this story as I've done quite a thorough WP:BEFORE. Orange sticker (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that, too, after I posted that reply. I do believe that ALL Hugo (and Nebula, but whatever) nominees will have had sufficient RS coverage somewhere to be notable, even if most of the time no one goes to the trouble to find it. But this itself raises an issue of WP:NSMT, in that we could redirect the story to the notable author or the notable award for which it was nominated. Not the strongest argument for a standalone article, but even things like George R.R. Martin's periodic blog posts about the Hugo nominees (anything to avoid writing Winds of Winter...) count towards notability as Martin is a valid expert for WP:SPS purposes. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based off of the discussion above. Bearian (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty desert

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, neologism introduced in an June 2022 McKinsey report on "VC funding and the black beauty industry" [26] but which does not have any broader traction in the literature (or for that matter in general publications on the internet), unlike analogous concepts like Food desert and Medical desert which are the subject of hundreds of scholarly publications. Even in the original McKinsey report, the term is used only in passing. The one other potentially-independent reference to the concept is in Beauty Matter [27], a breathlessly promotional writeup by the largely promotional outlet (per their About Us page [28]), by the publication's CEO, leaving little hope that this is really independent and reliable coverage. Perhaps in the future this term will gain traction, and some of the content from the McKinsey report could be repurposed for a page like Racial inequality in the cosmetics industry, but it is WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article on this specific term-of-art-in-the-making (and really, such an article should start with a bibliography of peer-reviewed sources, not a white paper from a notoriously corrupt think tank). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would have worded it differently, but that's basically it: this is a page of synthesis that is ultimately based on a bad source. Ultimately, a good article based on racism in the beauty industry can be created. Bearian (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Russell

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

Few refs on the page, one that is present appears to amount to no more than two sentences. WP:NPOL provisions do not appear to have been met as the role of collector and/or District magistrate was not a state-wide position under the Raj and I don't think is even now in modern India. Certainly it dies not appear that people holding this role in modern times are considered notable. Only other claims to notability are inherited. Unless others can offer good reasons to the contrary, I don't think this person meets the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, with no inherent notability for being a district collector and/or district magistrate. The biographical detail here appears to be wrong - a search of the British Newspaper Archive and Google Books for "Claude Russell" + Indies results in death notices published in 1817: "At Benares, in the East Indies, Claude Russell, Esq. of the East India Company's service, son of Claude Russell, esq. of Warfield, Berks." There is also a death notice in September 1847 that may be for his widow: "On the 16th inst., at No. 13, Hamilton-place, St. John's-wood, Charlotte Russell, relict of Claude Russell, Esq., Civil service, Bengal." So all we have is his non-notable civil service roles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of any sources about him. I searched on Google news and found zero articles about him; they were all written by him or name-checks. I note that Popsugar is not a reliable source. Likewise, all the hits on Google books are to electronic or coffee table books by him, or by his friends, and nothing about him. I don't think that being editor of a notable magazine automatically makes him notable. Bearian (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Gurschler

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

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS as the only coverage is in databases showing at most exactly the kind of participation-based notability that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE.

De'Prodded by BeanieFan11 with the comment "according to Olympedia, he later was an engineer and owned his own construction company - there's a decent chance he'd have received coverage for Olympedia to know that so I think this would warrant afd". With the maximum respect to Beanie, this does not state a keep reason within our PAGs. Having owned a company and been an engineer is not a credible reason to keep an article, or assume that there would have been any coverage of the subject. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point with my comment in the deprod is this: how would Olympedia know that he was later an engineer and businessman? Surely there was somewhere they got that from... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the Frank English case it appears that Olympedia updates their listings based on a range of inputs, including stuff that isn't in what we would call a reliable source (in that case they changed the mistakes in their listing for Frank English apparently in response to our discussion at AFD - it originally gave the name as Francis English and a death-date of 1984, they changed this to 1998 after the AFD and added the name "Frank").

Their source for this could be word-of-mouth, emails from relatives, in-house newsletters and whatever. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Nothing in google news (noting he was from an older era) and 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley A. Guglielmo

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough information in the sources to justify keeping the article JTZegers (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Louisiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Statewide elected officials meet WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Based on both NPOL and the current sources in the stub, he's clearly notable. He lived pre-Internet, so a myriad of sources can't be expected. Bearian (talk) 11:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hussam Nabil

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

Non-notable, only trivial mentions of the person in references DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Qatar, Spain, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maumee, Indiana

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

A "no there there" spot of which I can only find a passing reference to a store here in an old history of the county, and this book tends to have paragraphs on real towns. Other than that searching is drowned out by hits on the river. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sum total that I can find, thanks to Baker listing the alternative name and apart from all of the "Maumee, Jackson, Ind." post-office directory listings, is a 1988 history of Jackson published by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana that says:
Another group of families settled at Findley's Mill on Salt Creek, later known as Maumee.
Looking for more about Findley's Mill just leads to geological reports of sandstone in Salt Creek Township, Jackson County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Us this another ghost town? Bearian (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkana Sharma

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

Fails notability due to lack of coverage by reliable sources. Tone of article is highly promotional and advertorial. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely not notable, if notable WP:TNT applies as content is LLM generated. A09|(talk) 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football Saved My Life

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

Fails WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Neil_Ruddock#Television_career: as the show is already mentioned there. Note: I restored as an expired PROD but don't consider myself involved as no history with the article Star Mississippi 17:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Hussain Aleemi

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

Not a single reference from any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndySailz: Why do you think these cited books are completely unreliable? Please justify your nomination instead of just AfD bombing. GrabUp - Talk 14:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GrabUp The books are not reliable sources and self published. AndySailz (talk) 05:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:PROF. The movement of which he is part is clearly notable with millions of followers; there no evidence that he is notable. As a "scholar", he doesn't seem to have any evidence of passing the PROF test. I admit that the term "scholar" is confusing in this context, because I think he is more like an imam or ayatollah, but not exactly those kinds of clerics. If you can clarify this, or show that the sources are in fact reliable, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Shahin

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sultan Shahin does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources. AndySailz (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is "Sultan" a title or name? (As in My Name is Earl?) Bearian (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Khan (athlete)

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. The person does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources. AndySailz (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject is an international Taekwondo player and has been covered by reliable sources such as Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan Patrika, The Print, and even 'ETV Bharat'—all with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Even if we consider the minimum criteria under WP:THREE, the subject still meets the notability guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three references including ETV Bharat are not reliable and fails WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noori Kiran

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

Non-notable publication, Unable to find significant or in-depth coverage. AndySailz (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Roy Burman

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: When I created this article, I believed that the sources I used were entirely reliable. However, after the admin Significa Liberdade edited the article, they removed all unreliable sources, for which I sincerely appreciate their efforts. [29]The subject is an author, and to be honest, I also struggled to find completely reliable sources. Therefore, I have decided to draft the article so that I can take the time to find better sources. Baqi:) (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Konečný (footballer)

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

Redirect to List of Slovakia international footballers as ATD, because I could not find any in-depth coverage for this former footballer to meet WP:GNG, even while searching in conjunction with clubs he played for. In terms of secondary sources, I found nothing better than a passing mention on SME. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:20, 30 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꒱˚｡⋆ 12:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlata Mahishwar

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

I can not locate any references that meet WP:RS except BBC. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a member of the Women in Red project, and as part of that initiative, I actively work on creating more Wikipedia articles about notable women. Regarding the subject in question, they are also notable as an author. Moreover, reliable sources such as 'Newsclick', 'Sahapedia', 'BBC', and 'Forward Press' have covered them in-depth, clearly demonstrating that the subject meets WP:GNG. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the in Red project does not imply the ability to produce non-notable subjects. Aside from the BBC, Newsclick, Sahapedia, and Forward Press are unreliable sources that are deficient in credibility. WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Baqi think the subject passes WP:GNG and there are Hindi languages sources as well as she writes in Hindi.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pharaoh of the Wizards, On what ground the subject passes GNG. Let's discuss about the references. AndySailz (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per full professor at two notable universities (one established more than a century ago) and female academic in a place where professors are rare clear pass of the average professor test. (p.s. to AndySailz -- responding to every comment at AfD w/o supporters w/o specific rebuttals is rarely the way to make a winning argument) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I do not see anything that passes the average professor test here. Being a professor, even at well-established universities, is exactly the thing that does _not_ pass this test. Citations are low, and none of the other criteria seem to be passed. It looks more likely that the subject here passes WP:NAUTHOR, but this would generally require reviews of her books, which I did not find. Following in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie Nantongo

AfDs for this article:

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

Editor recreated previously deleted article without any changes Equine-man (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Equine-man (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[30]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would we get rid of this sourced tournament just because they didn't write up 1000 sources like they do today? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are countless non-notable sporting events every day, and long-established consensus is that we only should have articles on the ones where there are indepth secondary sources? If they didn't write up these sources then, and no one has done since then, then it isn't notable. Fram (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Morriatti

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Promotional, resume-style article. Sources include an interview with a former Forbes contributor, paid articles masquerading as legitimate, and trivial, non-substantial coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 08:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Even ignoring the tone of the article, all I see when searching for sources are passing mentions, and a single interview. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

[31]https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickdaso/2022/05/29/michael-morriatti-a-seasoned-wme-entertainment-executive-launches-his-new-technology-and-entertainment-venture-firm-called-envisioned-capital/

[32]https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/how-celebrities-like-addison-rae-got-famous-during-the-pandemic/

[33]https://www.c21media.net/news/5x-media-grows-roster-of-creator-economy-talent-after-hiring-michael-morriatti/

"Meanwhile, Michael Morriatti, an entertainment executive and angel investor, aims to combine the best of entertainment and technology. He recently launched Envisioned Capital, a venture firm that invests in promising projects in the entertainment and tech worlds. “I’ve always been fascinated by the impact of these two industries, so I dedicated myself to finding the most disruptive stars in entertainment and the most innovative technology companies,” says Morriatti, who shares that his goal is to build strong representation for future names in entertainment and produce top content in immersive ways by using the latest technology and formats." -Variety

these were just from searching for 3 and a half minutes, there is enough press on him to be able to write a at least a stub on Wikipedia, he's involved in major films, has major press from major platforms like Variety, Deadline and even multiple on Forbes. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , just from reading this discussion, then doing my own research, I also believe that this qualifies for coverage on Wikipedia. This is just from researching and I found a few standalone articles including the Forbes one mentioned. I also found that Morriatti attended and was invited to the 66th Grammys and is close connections with Universal. JohnathanQuince (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I believe the article should just be written better in your honest opinion as only a few of these major articles were mentioned in the article. JohnathanQuince (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please only post your verdict once in an AFD discussion, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these are the strongest sources, I don't see any of these passing WP:GNG on their own:

Forbes - Author is "former contributor", meaning it's not reliable per WP:FORBESCON

Us Weekly - Interviews are not secondary sources, and the intro does not seem like enough in-depth coverage. I also cannot tell is this is an affiliate article or not, since it looks like US Weekly allows for paid-for articles.

C21 - Questionable source. Reads like a press release. It's mainly based on quotes or info from a non-independent source (5XMedia, the company Morriatti works at and the article is written about).

Variety - "Partner content", which I assume means paid-for. - Whisperjanes (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU note Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HHamidcastro - Issacvandyke and JohnathanQuince, who have commented above, are socks of the article's author. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Rights Arts Movement

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

Fails WP:NORG. None of the sources are WP:SIGCOV. GTrang (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've had this on my list to do a WP:BEFORE but haven't had time yet, but I trust the nominator has, and I agree with the assessment of the sources currently in the article. Only the Brooklyn Rail piece clears the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. The rest of the coverage consists of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or affiliated coverage. (See the talk page for my view on why the AustLit source is defective in this regard.) All told, I don't see an WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and New York. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancy name, but not one hit in google news or google books (This is quite rare for something from an English speaking country). Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Before I commence, I should declare an interest, in that I am the Editor who created the WP article in question. By way of overview, I believe the argument for deletion is based upon some unfounded assumptions, and I will elaborate. Before doing so, however, just a brief comment on the posting by Libstar. I mention in passing that I don't believe there's any requirement that a WP article has hits thru Google News or Google Books. That said, if one searches on both Google News and Google Books there are in fact numerous hits for the International Human Rights Arts Festival, which was the name for the IHRAM until recently. Now to the comment by Dclemens1971. He/she usefully notes that the Brooklyn Rail reference is significant. Agreed. I don’t agree, however, with his/her assessment that all the other references are trivial or incidental, and in particular I don't think that his/her that his assessment of the Austlit reference stands up to closer scrutiny. For instance, he/she rightly focusses on two issues with the Austlit reference, namely, significance, sometimes called substance, and independence. It is useful to look closely at both of these, under the under Notability (organizations and companies) Guideline WP:ORG. 1. Regarding significance/substance, the above Guideline suggests that the mention of the organization or company cannot be trivial or incidental. A number of examples are given. Conversely, the Guidelines gives examples of a substantial mention of the organization or company. The listing of examples in the Guideline is not exhaustive, and includes, as examples, a passage in a book or an encyclopedia article. I think the Austlit entry can be reasonably considered an electronic equivalent to both of these, and thus does qualify as being significant/substantial. I don’t think the Austlit entry could reasonably be described as trivial or incidental, especially when one looks at the reputation of Austlit. 2. Regarding independence, the Wikipedia article for Austlit itself explains that this is an ongoing Australian research project, jointly funded by Australian universities and the Australian Research Council. There is no connection whatsoever between the International Human Rights Arts Movement (IHRAM), which is based in the USA, and Austlit, which is currently based with the University of Queensland, Australia. Further, the wording used in the Austlit entry isn’t actually found on the IHRAM website. It is true that Austlit entry does provide a link to the IHRAM website, but if one looks in general at other Wikipedia articles on organizations, such links are common - it doesn’t necessarily mean there is some organizational relationship. There are thus at least two reliable and significant sources for the WP article in question. As the alleged of lack of such sources is the basis of the argument for deletion, I believe it follows that the article should in fact be kept. Research17 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Austlit source is a single paragraph that says this: 'The International Human Rights Arts Movement is an international organizetion based in New York, which aims, through the arts, to highlight human rights issues. The IHRAM curates the annual International Human Rights Arts Festival, which includes the Art of Unity Creative Awards. The Awards garner wide participation, including from Europe, Africa, the Indo-Pacific (including Australia), and the Americas.' Source: https://humanrightsartmovement.org/ That's not WP:SIGCOV, and it's basically saying it got the information from IHRAM's website. I do not understand why you are making such an effort to defend this single paragraph as a GNG-qualifying source instead of trying to bring more sources to the table -- unless such sources do not exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Your suggestion about checking for more sources is a fair one and I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, however, just a point of clarification: in your estimation is Austlit a reliable source? Research17 (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, I suppose, but every source has to be evaluated on all four dimensions and in this case it appears to fail the test of secondary, independent and significant coverage, so its reliability is a red herring. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Just a brief update. I'm not sure that Austlit does actually fail when you look closely. But we may not need to discuss this. In response to the suggestion above to "bring more sources to the table", I've located two further sources and now added these to the article. The first is from a chapter in the recently published Routledge book Democracy as Creative Practice, by artist Alika Hope and arts professor Penny Brandt. As Editors would be aware, Routledge is a respected scholarly publisher. I've also added a reference to the website Stage Buddy. This has less obvious credentials, but on the other hand it is cited as a source in peer-reviewed scholarship. Look forward to hearing what others think. BTW, yes, I will need to tidy up the referencing somewhat. Research17 (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gale, Indiana

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

I can only guess how the GNIS folks came up with this one. This got back-entered onto the maps after "Board decisions referenced after Phase I data compilation or staff researched non-controversial names." What seems to have happened in practice is that they conflated a housing development from the 1970s-'80s with the post office that shut down some seventy years earlier. The county history doesn't mention it and there's nothing there in earlier maps and aerials. There's no particular reason to believe that they have the location correct, and it seems unlikely that the development was named after the post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information found, and the post office does not count toward notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker's Hoosier placenames book on page 141 says that this is a post office. It's there long enough to have made it into the 1895 Lippincott's, but it's not there amongst the Gales on page 1237, contraindicating any sort of settlement. This close to Indianapolis, the Bodenhamer and Barrows Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (IUP, 1994) seems worth a try, but that yields nothing.
However the Arcadia Publishing book on Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970) has Gale on page 114 and says that there was also a blacksmith, hardware store, and the original site (until 1961) of the Bartlett Chapel Church. So that's one source that's more than a post office directory entry. Another is the Hendricks County, Interim Report of 1989 by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which on page 36 describes Gale in the past tense as a "village" that had "a general store, blacksmith shop, and a Methodist church". So this is a documented, albeit barely, historical village, now extinct.
Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmmm... I don't suppose any of these gives us enough information to confirm the location? Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arcadia publishing book has a drawing of the old church building, but no map. It does say that Hardscrabble, where Bartlett Chapel Church now is, is "a few miles east" of where Gale was; and that the original chapel building was re-used by the golf course. Both the current chapel and the golf course are on modern maps, so the location in the article at hand seems reasonable. The Hendricks County, Interim Report has a map (alas! too blurry to read on-screen) and outright says in words "Gale, located east of Danville at U.S. 36 and County Road 300 E, had […]" which again supports this article's coördinates. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center Valley, Indiana

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

Look, the cited reference says "CENTER VALLEY is a postoffice on section 25, in the southern part of the township. There is no village at that point. What more needs to be said? Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable place and factually incorrect article. Also, the IU registrar supposedly born there (reference 5) was born in 1864, apparently before the post office, so he was likely born in a different Center Valley. Anyway, without any information about this place we can't be certain of anything the article says, other than the name exists in GNIS and there was once a post office. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't in the 1895 Lippincott's as Center Valley. It's there, on page 838, as Centre Valley, a "post-hamlet" in Liberty township, with "a church and about a half-dozen houses". Yes, the 1885 History says the aforegiven, but the decade-later Lippincott's records more. Clearly, it went from there being nothing there to there being something there. Baker's Hoosier place names book has Centre Valley on page 91 and states that it was a "village". Baker also explains on that page that Center Valley moved from Morgan County across the border to Hendricks County in 1872 and there was a Center Valley from 1856. Zell's Popular Encyclopedia of 1869 confirms a Centre Valley in Morgan on page 485. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, what's a "post-hamlet" in the context above? I think that's the first time I've seen such a term. Does it mean it grew past an ordinary hamlet? – The Grid (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no "classes" or "grades" of cities in Lippincott's, as that was a 20th century innovation in some parts of the U.S.A.. It had a uniform terminology (for places in the U.S.A.): where things are hamlets, villages, towns/townships, and cities; and the hamlets, villages, and towns/townships that have post offices have "post-" prefixed to them. Things that are just post offices on their own are "post-office". Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Kotnala

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

Highly promo page for an academic full of issues. While he might pass notability WP:NPROF#C1, even after some cleaning of unverified statements the page contains far too much unsourced material. As general quality control I am recommending draftifying; somehow it has escaped the standard 3 month window for this. We need to ensure that articles in main space are not just notable, they are encyclopedic.

Issues:

No sources for #Early life and education
No sources for #Career as a scientist
Highly promo tone about the so-called hydroelectric cell which "generates green electricity by splitting water", for which the only sources quoted are news articles.
Claim of establishment of advanced measurement techniques for magnetic materials quotes a paper on biological extraction of metals
From what I can see no secondary sources, only a couple of his papers and news articles in the cleaned up sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable academic, but stubify this down to facts that can be independently cited and phrased neutrally. Nothing more. There's been some good work done on the article to demonstrate a lot of the claims aren't what they appear, so I think a serious and unapologetic cull is in order. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Marquit

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual does not seem notable, I couldn't find enough sources with this person's name. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources and information to the article. I think there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Collins

AfDs for this article:

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

This person may or may not have significant coverage verified by reliable sources. Nonetheless, being eliminated early in The Traitors (American TV series) season 3 and appearing in Survivor a few times doesn't make him more than known for just winning Survivor once. (I don't think his Price Is Right appearance improves much, does it?) Per WP:GNG, primary sources don't count as verification of this person's notabillity. This EW interview and Men's Journal interview (posing as an article in prose format) or this "article" featuring full quotes by the article subject are primary sources. So is this NBC article. This CBS article briefly mentions him as winner of Cambodia season.

When I nominated this article for the first time, I proposed numerous suggestions, which may have led to "no consensus" result. This time, I would definitely like this article to be redirected to Survivor: Cambodia. The alternative targets List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants and Survivor: San Juan Del Sur (his debut season) are nice, but his status as the Cambodia winner is IMO stronger than his other TV appearances. Even an article about a returnee was redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water per another AFD discussion.

If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NBASIC, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? (Failing NBASIC but meeting WP:NACTOR still doesn't make him an exception, IMO.) George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, American football, and Massachusetts. George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to match all 3 critiera of WP:BLP1E for it to apply he does not even meet the first 2 so you can't really apply that further more the "article that got redirected" while it did happen it was the result of a afd that wasn't attended by a single editor so it's a poor comparison yes his Survivor tenure is the most notable part but he is know for being in 2 seasons furthmore until very recently every Survivor winner had a page so this goes against precedence as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he won once but the show he won and was Fetruared on multiple times is also one of the most watched shows in the world has lasted more then 40 seasons and has spawned multiple spin offs across the globe im not sure how that cant possibly NOT make him notable it seems like the nominater while good intentiond has severley ignored the impact and popularity of the show Wwew345t (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominaters argument seems to be =wining Survivor =not notable while simultaneously ignoring that survivor is one of the most watched shows in the world the sources cover the article plenty Wwew345t (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the article needs is extra sources Wwew345t (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://decider.com/2025/01/19/jeremy-collins-the-traitors/ shows that his Traitors appearance also got coverage Wwew345t (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you basing his notability on the show's own popularity? WP:INHERENT (essay) suggests we avoid one's notability based on another's. Decider.com is part of New York Post, which is considered "generally unreliable" per WP:NYPOST. WP:DECIDER somehow considers Decider.com marginally reliable but cautions using it.

Reading it, the "article" in disguise is just an interview, meaning I have to treat the source as a primary source, which still doesn't verify his notability.

What about other rules I provided if you still think BLP1E doesn't apply? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument of WP:INHERENT would be more effective if he was some random contestant who got out early but he wasnt he pplayed 3 times all 3 times he made it to rhe merge section of the game this qualifes him for [[WP:NACTOR]] that was why I brought up the show Wwew345t (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://entertainmentnow.com/news/jeremy-collins-survivor/ is a source and https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/survivor-winners-through-the-years-where-are-they-now/ mentions not only his Survivor appearances but also his traitors appearance this https://thedirect.com/article/the-traitors-season-3-us-cast-contestants-peacock-photos-bios mentions his appearance on the traitors while also going a little bit in detail of what he did in his 3rd Survivor season I'll post some more links later but there's clearly substantial coverage establishing notabillity Wwew345t (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.monstersandcritics.com/tv/reality-tv/who-is-jeremy-collins-from-the-traitors-us-3-cast/ also describes his appearances on survivor and even brings up the fact that he was notable enough to be voted into the season he eventually won https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2025/01/09/traitors-season-3-will-jeremy-collins-be-a-traitor/77572114007/ while I admittedly am not sure if this counts as primary or secondary since it mentions a old interview he did this also covers his traitors appearance and why he was casted .Wwew345t (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 4 non primary sources and i could probably find more sufficient to say this article like many othet winner articles that shouldnt have been deleted passes BASIC and GNG Wwew345t (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Now website belongs to Heavy Inc., which aggregates news from other sources, like social media ones. This source takes info from Twitter (now called "X.com") and Instagram and interviews disguised as "articles". I'd caution using the source per WP:HEAVY.COM if I were you. Same for Us Weekly (WP:RSP#Us Weekly).

The Direct article was just previewing cast (including him) and the third season. Unconvinced that it's the indicator of this person's notability, despite brief description of his Survivor gameplay. Also unconvinced that Monsters and Critics is highly reputable (past RSN discussion). Wicked Local source republishes a USA Today "article" that primarily advertises (or hypes up) Collins's Traitor appearance, despite detailing his profile. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monters and critcs discussion is severely outdated it was almost 13 years ago Wwew345t (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your dismissing the wicked article for "hyping up his traitors appearance" despite you making a claim that there were no sources that covered it Wwew345t (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? The wicked local article is a secondary source and is primarily about the tratiors apprerance Wwew345t (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article doesn't mention his elimination from The Traitors. This "article" resembles a pre-premiere press release, IMO.

Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? How about "primarily" instead? Also, I don't mind other reliable sources verifying his notability, but we still have to be cautious about how sources cover him. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the sources willb primarily cover the win as that is his most notable accivemnt however he wouldn't have been casted in said season at all if his first appearance wasnt notable at all i mean the season was "second chance" then his win had to have been notable ennoigh to have him invited again to another season they dont iust let anyone come back and then he would have had to have been a notable enough survivor player to have been invited to the traitors youll note that most other survivor players who have shown up for the traitors also have pages even if they didnt win a season of survivor (like cirie fields) basically what i mean is you dont come back multiple times including in a all winners season if you werent already a notable player Wwew345t (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wasnt just some guy who showd up in one season got out and thats it he played 3 times never finishing below 10th Wwew345t (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seem to recall, over dozens of AfDs about reality shows, that winners of major reality shows are presumed to be notable. Then the burden shifts to the side to prove that significant coverage doesn't exist. I also recall that the burden is on those who claim BLP1E. With all the sources and appearances in three seasons of the prototype of reality shows, I think the burdens of proof that he's not notable hasn't been met. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the burdens of proof that he's not notable hasn't been met. I thought I sufficiently proved he's notable only for winning just Cambodia, despite appearing in other Survivor seasons and The Traitors. (Compare him to another [non-notable?] returnee who appeared in just [four seasons of] Survivor, only one of which he won there.) If disqualifying interviews, like the one summarizing an interview video, if insufficient to prove his lack of notability, then how else shall I prove that he fails GNG and NBASIC? George Ho (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is his notability comes from tv not news articles and that is rhe main issue with people assuming reality TV people aren't notable that's just not the case the coverage is there the sources are there Wwew345t (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant Coverage confirming his notability Wwew345t (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not just news articles, then how about books and scholarly journals? This book is quoting the article subject; not an indicator of notability, IMO. This almanac is merely listing him as a Survivor winner. This novel refers to some fictional character of the same name, so it doesn't count. Couldn't find magazines significantly covering him without interviewing him besides People, which barely, if not never, covers his Winners at War appearance or his debut season. Couldn't find scholarly journals significantly about him either. News articles are primarily what we got.

the problem is his notability comes from tv not news articles What you said may contradict WP:GNG, like "independent of the subject" criterion, and possibly WP:NBASIC. "TV" is associated with this person who appeared on TV. The TV shows themselves that he appeared in cannot be used to verify his notability if we're gonna apply GNG and NBASIC here. Reliable secondary sources, like news articles from reputable sources, are the ones we can use instead. George Ho (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independence of the subject applies to personal websites and advertisements is jermey collins a survivor producer writor or director? Wwew345t (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument contradicts NACTOR as well as it states that "a character that has a significant role in multipe shows and/or movies are considered notable" he played a major part in 3 different seasons of Survivor and made it far all 3 times Survivor seasons are the same show but with a different cast each season its differnt enough to be considered unique you say he is only notable for his cambodia win but he wouldnt have been on there to begin with had his San juan del sur game not have been notable enough to make him return on top of that he returned a 3rd time this time to a all winners season and on top of that he was invited to play on the traitors which usally tries to cast NOTABLE realty show competitors. Notability is firmly established in these appearances and the sources used in the article Wwew345t (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note (and this has nothing to do with my argument above) i struggle to see how you could say a multi time returnee and a winner who has been on other reality shows because of his notability from said show cant be notable when you created Helen Glover (Survivor contestant) a non notable contest who played once on a season generally regarded as one of the worst ever? Wwew345t (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't meet the BLP1E standerds he passes NACTOR and he has sig cov from high profile news sources moerver you dont seem to grasp the concept that has been reiterated by me and any keep voters in any afd you make he's a winner of a major reailty show and your questioning how that can be notable based on your opinion and a couple technicalities we shouldnt be re directing pages on notable subjects because of technicalities Wwew345t (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent of the subject" means disqualifying the person himself, his wife, people associated with Survivor (I hope), CBS (yes, CBS), and others associated with him. WP:NBASIC also mentions "independent of the subject".

Helen Glover (Survivor contestant) a non notable contest who played once on a season generally regarded as one of the worst ever She is considered notable for other things besides appearing in that season. The article was approved into mainspace via WP:AfC process. If you disagree, how about (instructions from) WP:AFD or enabling WP:Twinkle? George Ho (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collins can't just appear in those shows. His roles must be "significant" in order to meet WP:NACTOR. So far, I've yet to see him contribute "significant[ly]" to either Winners at War or his debut season... or The Traitors, and being eliminated from both of them seasons and the other show to me may not be sufficiently "significant" without (to me) proof from reliable secondary sources. Unsure about his The Price Is Right appearance, but even winning prizes at a game show (to me) is neither "unique" nor "prolific" nor "innovative" to the entertainment field. George Ho (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He made it to the merge phase in all 3 of his seasons and contributed to the overall strategy of all 3 that's significant mauve not to you but it is to alot of people Wwew345t (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think youve really seen the show at all or youd know his contributions to it are prolific i suggest watching the show before you put another survivor winner page before you put it into afd with the assumption that people' wont identify just how opinionated your argument is Wwew345t (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i suggest watching the show before you put another survivor winner page before you put it into afd with the assumption that people' wont identify just how opinionated your argument is. You know what? We're going back and forth without compromises. I was gonna comment about general readers unable to afford access to the series, but that won't change your mind much, would it, despite trying to get into their shoes? Let's await more of others then, shan't we? George Ho (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could definitely benefit from more citation, but there is no shortage of published articles about him to source because he is notable. 00:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to me that this is somewhat similar to the AfD we had a while back on WG Grace, see WP:Articles for deletion/W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870). The difference here appears to be substantive in that we are talking about a sporting achievement rather than trying to write a full autobiography. I've not yet come to a conclusion where I fall on this one but thought other contributors might appreciate seeing the other discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like a proposal to delete a Featured List needs a stronger argument than this. In any case, it meets the long-agreed upon threshold of 15 fifers. St Anselm (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A stronger argument than it not meeting our most basic PAGs? FOARP (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of references to the article, establishing the significance of his fifers as captain. St Anselm (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you added here. It’s a passing mention in an article about Joe Root/Pat Cummins. Not significant coverage of Bob Willis. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge necessary content to the main article. Lorstaking (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject meets NLIST requirements for IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NLIST which says:
Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

The Times has covered his five-wicket haul performances in detail in his obituary ([34]) and same is the case with other obituaries where they covered his five-wicket hauls [35], [36] - these sources partially cover his five-wicket hauls and meet the requirement of WP:NLIST. He was one of the greatest cricketers of England (there is a trophy named after him, i.e. Bob Willis Trophy) so obviously there are a lot of books and magazines that have covered his wicket-hauls. I found some on Google Books like [37]. The current referencing of the list is not ideal but someone with access to paid sources can find more sources to expand the list. Thanks. Gheus (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Times, Scotsman, and Graun articles do not mention five-wicket hauls at all. They mention total wickets taken, the average numbers of wickets taken, 27 wickets in five tests, and so-forth but fifers aren't mentioned at all. That isn't partial coverage - that's no coverage. No-one is questioning whether Bob Willis himself is notable, just whether a listing of all of his 5-wicket hauls is notable. The GBooks link isn't visible to me. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR, just a repeat of content that can be found on ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources discuss various notable performances where sometimes his getting some number of wickets in a match is mentioned alongside other standard match recap stats. They are not covering the concept of "repeated n-wicket hauls", let alone validating the threshold of 5 wickets in particular. If we accepted such arbitrary passing stats one of these lists could be made for each type of stat for almost every famous cricketer and certainly most MLB/NFL/NBA players. JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of no-hitters thrown by the New York Yankees is a red link for some reason... FOARP (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw the invitation at WT:CRIC, and have read both Bob Willis and the list. I can see no good reason to keep the list, but plenty of reasons to delete it. As JoelleJay has pointed out, the obituary sources do not talk about the number of times Bob Willis took five wickets in an innings—as regards his bowling performances, they essentially focus on his outstanding match at Headingley in 1981—and I believe that, as a "grouping or set in general", this fails WP:NLIST. I completely agree with Ajf773 about the statistics, and I do not think any cricket article should be based on statistics derived from a database source. There are four paragraphs of text introducing the list, but I am not seeing anything that isn't in the main article and, again, the information is nearly all derived from statistics. I think FOARP is right about WP:AVOIDSPLIT because the split-list doesn't have notability—it is nothing more than a statistical offshoot that cannot stand alone, under the terms of WP:GNG. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bob Willis, main of the reasons by those who have !voted delete is that this is not sufficiently notable to be a standalone list. In that case the obvious solution (imo) should be to merge the content into the main article, thus retaining content that is deemed featured worthy rather than destroying it entirely. JP (Talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Nothing on Wiki is ever “destroyed”. Even deleted material can undeleted (ask an admin).

2) The total number of fifers and details descriptions of notable wicket-hauls are already discussed in depth on Bob Willis’s article, so what is there to merge here that isn’t already there?

3) How is this statistical minutiae WP:DUE in a general biography? FOARP (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many cricketing biographies in book form and on Wikipedia (at FA/GA level) include 'Statistical summary' sections at the end, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included in such as section. Fifers are not statistical minutiae in cricket hence this list being created in the first place. JP (Talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to be, otherwise this discussion wouldn’t be headed for delete. But why isn’t it enough to provide the prose description of important wicket hauls, together with the total count of fifers and other statistical information already supplied the info box? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As stated in my initial response, most of those !voting delete have stated in their reasoning that this should not be a separate list. My reaction to that is merge rather than delete. The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose. JP (Talk) 16:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". I'm not convinced that this article meets this criterion. Although the stats are partially covered in the Bob Willis infobox, I think more information can be merged into the parent article. Like JP, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would the table and prose be sourced to to qualify as BALASP? We have no coverage of "5-wicket hauls" as a topic, so how would we justify including data with that arbitrary cutoff? JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does "We have no coverage of 5-wicket hauls as a topic" mean? We have a page on it and it is frequently mentioned on the Bob Willis page. It is not an arbitrary cutoff, it is one of the main statistics as shown by the infobox. JP (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have coverage of it as a topic in the context of Willis. Since no secondary independent sources are discussing the relevance of specifically Willis' five-wicket hauls, it would be undue to cover it with a giant table and prose in the Willis article. Moreover, on that page every single mention but one of "taking five wickets" in a given match is being drawn from pure primary stats rather than secondary prose, and in the one Wisden ref where getting a fifer is mentioned in prose, it's because he got exactly five wickets and they're just reporting that fact. It is OR to emphasize aspects of a subject beyond how they are treated in sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of coverage as a topic is the argument against this standalone list. If the five wicket hauls are covered throughout the prose then I fail to see how a summary table of those is going to bring undue balance. JP (Talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay's argument is that, since secondary sources don't cover this anyway, it's not clear why we need to cover it in detail in our article on Bob Willis. We already give the total number of fifers scored by Bob Willis in their infobox so how is it WP:DUE to include a table listing every single one? Since the notable ones are covered in prose anyway, why do we need a tabular listing? Additionally the Bob Willis article is already verging on WP:TOOLONG territory at 69 kB prose size.

FOARP (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources do cover the individual five-wicket haul performances just not as a collective. To quote my earlier response: "The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose." BTW fifers are not scored. JP (Talk) 10:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Group

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

No relialbe media coverage, only acquisitions coverage (not in-depth). Thus it fails per NCORP Cinder painter (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that AfD volunteers should consider checking the article's history and following the link I put in when I first created it.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[Later] Okay. To non-admins it looks like I created this article on 7 July 2011 (unless you happen to be one of those non-admins who check the logs). In fact, I created it after the community specifically authorized its creation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 28.
Admins will be able to see that the real original creator was User:Chadlupkes. After Chadlupkes created it, User:Prm1 made it a great deal more promotional. (Special:Contributions/Prm1 shows you that 100% of Prm1's contributions have been deleted.)
The promotional version was summarily deleted by User:JzG, who was at that time a sysop.
JzG's deletion was brought to deletion review by User:John Vandenberg, who was at that time also a sysop and sometime member of the Arbitration Committee, on the grounds that we ought to have an article about the M1 Group. The community, including tragically now-deceased sometime member of the Arbitration Committee User:DGG, agreed.
As you can see from the M1 Group talk page, I created it by translating from the French Wikipedia article, at fr:M1 Group. On checking this again now, I suspect that the French Wikipedia article was itself a translation of the en.wiki article version originally created by User:Chadlupkes.
Therefore the correct result of this AfD is to undelete the history from first creation in order to restore attribution for compliance with the Terms of Use.
Finally, I would note that although I translated this from French, I don't speak Arabic. You would expect any company based in Lebanon and owned by a former Lebanese Prime Minister to have sources in Arabic, but I don't know the correct search terms. In view of the company's entry on the Dirty List for its dubious activities in Myanmar, I would also suggest searching for sources in Burmese (and, considering the geopolitics, possibly Hebrew).—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Patanjali Wellness

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

The references in the article currently consist of routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE), which is typically found in Indian media (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Apart from that, the article entirely fails to meet the WP:NCORP guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)‎ Redtree21 (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Equal

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

Fails WP:NORG - no significant coverage and only trivial news sources. Wikipedia generally does not have articles for organisations of this size. Redtree21 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail WP:NORG:

Withdrawn by nominator - Keep result produced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodia's Kitchen

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Vue de Monde & Flower Drum - sources present establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Too varied to be bundled together. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: B.East. By my reading there are at least two citations in the first sentence where there is WP:CORPDEPTH and which are independent and reliable secondary sources. This AFD is a bit of a dog's breakfast and I would recommend the nominator closing this early and nominating articles that they believe don't meet WP:NCORP separately. TarnishedPath^talk 12:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @TarnishedPath: I appreciate your concerns regarding the bundling of the articles. All of the articles are included in Category:Restaurants in Melbourne, except for Section 8 (music venue) which is linked to from the B.East article. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redtree21, I spotted the link. This issue with doing it this way is that you risk all of them being kept when some might be deleted if listed separately. TarnishedPath^talk 13:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First, this is too many nominations bundled together. Second, Proud Mary should be kept as the chain has received plenty of secondary coverage in both Australia and the US. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you are serious about nominating so many articles, list them individually with a good reason. Coldbolt (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swami Tattwamayananda

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

WP:BEFORE shows no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and California. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. The formatting makes no sense to me, nor even the title. The sourcing is far below what we expect from a biographical article of a person living in North America. Bearian (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Withdrawn by nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel “Wowo” Laurio Fortes, Jr.

Withdraw from nominator - as per WP:HEY. Cassiopeia talk 00:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject fails GNG and NPOL for not having WP:SIGCOV of WP:RS, WP:IS that the subject is talked about in dept and length for verification Cassiopeia talk 08:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Cassiopeia talk 08:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NPOL with him being a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOL. I've cleaned up the COI issues. Jfire (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if kept, after AFD concludes, move to Wowo Fortes per WP:COMMONNAME. Jfire (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was admittedly in a dreadful state when published, but has since done a bit of a WP:HEY. In any case, it was always likely to survive per WP:NPOL. I think the nominator should now withdraw this. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NPOL ,being a member of the House of Representatives of the Philippines.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:NPOL, and additional references will be available in the future. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment" The user who made it wants to delete it. Ned1a Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 03:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thalli Manasu

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

Excluding the Sakshi source, I am uncertain about the reliability of the other sources. However, none of the cited Telugu sources provide independent significant coverage of the movie. All the sources report the same quotes from the movie’s creator. Also, no reviews found. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2025: released, verifiable, mildly notable cast-->standard ATD; but not opposed to Keep if the existing reviews are judged acceptable. Opposed to deletion -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Telugu_films_of_2025#January_–_March. RangersRus (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Health and Allied Insurance

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ORGCRIT. Unable to find significant coverage which are independent of the subject. Fails to satisfy WP:NCORP. Sooterout (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and India. Sooterout (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tusayiwe Mkhondya

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

The article subject may lack the required notability. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well it may, but I'd be surprised, the article has been patrolled, it has multiple reliable sources over several years, detailed accounts that are both national and international, well sourced photos of both her and her creations.... and that is assuming we ignore the additional stuff on youtube etc. All of that together defines notability for me. Victuallers (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Malone

AfDs for this article:

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

A person claiming to be the page's subject has requested deletion, citing safety concerns for her and her family (she's a trans rights activist). I think it's pretty reasonable – she's not non-notable, this wouldn't be my first choice for AfD normally, but she mostly appears in the news as an advocate, not as a person of interest herself. Most of the coverage comes from passing mentions in local news stories that are largely about trans rights or non-independent biographies from the ACLU and her own website. As is procedure for BLPREQUESTDELETE, leaving it up to the good folks at AfD :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and Indiana. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP: BLPREQUESTDELETE. If the page’s subject is concerned about her safety, I think it is only reasonable that we honour it. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is my own article, that I wrote and got into DYK, but I am willing to see it deleted if it has become a safety concern. Dominic·t 20:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Telle

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

A good article for WP:Verifiability but it appears to fail notability as an actor and as a musician. The Shelby Star is a great source here but it is a local one. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be enough ongoing reliable coverage to justify notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific, which ones? IgelRM (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in Hardcore Gamer, Variety, GamesRadar+, Push Square, TheGamer, The Shelby Star, and The Gaston Gazette, plus some not-insignificant mentions in The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media. That the coverage is ongoing stands out to me too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hardcore Gamer and The Gaston Gazette are being discussed below so I will skip over those.
Variety: Telle is mentioned and quoted in the article, although not the subject of the article.

GamesRadar+: An interview with Telle, she is frequently interviewed, but that does not make someone notable.

Pushsquare: Not the highest of sources, tertiary reporting on a video with her.

TheGamer (2 times): Not the highest of sources, checking the opinion piece: Praises her acting in Double Exposure, significant but not sure how opinions count for notability.

The Gaston Gazette: Appears to be the events section of a local newspaper, Telle is mentions giving a concert, not WP:SIGCOV

The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media mentions: I don't think should have need an article on everything that gets ongoing mentions and I believe these can be covered on the Life Is Strange article.

IgelRM (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not need to be the source's main topic for coverage to be significant. I believe the article passes the WP:GNG. (And, to be clear, Push Square and TheGamer are considered generally reliable per WP:VG/S.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheGamer is definitely considered "Situational" per WP:VG/S? And Push Square is similar to Nintendo Life, a enthusiast blog that I would evaluate differently for notability.

I would agree that the subject does not need to be the main subject of coverage, but could we also agree that from your long list just Variety and TheGamer seem relevant for this evaluation? IgelRM (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheGamer is "situational" overall, but in this situation is considered reliable: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Same goes for Push Square. All references are relevant, and I evaluated all of them when making my judgement; I firmly believe the subject is notable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as Shelby Star and hardcoregamer. With so much coverage she also meets WP:BASIC.Darkm777 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my nomination, the Shelby Star is good but it is a local story and therefore does not give GNG. The Hardcore Gamer feature is an interview. The most notability I see is her 2024 nomination for Best Performance. Edit: I would pass her WP:NACTOR, but it says "multiple" and I only see Life Is Strange and Life Is Strange: Double Exposure. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper coverage does count for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way the article is written as a feature on a local person, it's clear to not be sufficient. IgelRM (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 hardcore gamer articles this and this, while the first is mostly an interview, there are 3 paragraphs of intro about her, which can be used towards notability. The 2nd article has a couple of quotations but is not an interview. The policies say that when someone has multiple articles from one website, they can be combined. Provided, we combine these, we can count as one full good article towards notability. Also don't forget WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, multiple sources can be combined to show notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (you accidentally linked the same article twice) your argument. From the interview article, I see one paragraph that mentions her but not WP:SIGCOV:

"While the quality of the writing and dialogue have polarized critics -- although the title has vastly improved in these aspects with each episode’s release -- the voice acting is a factor that has remained consistent and brilliant throughout every episode, especially when it comes to the on-screen chemistry shared between the voice actresses for Max and Chloe Price: Hannah Telle and Ashly Burch respectively."

"Hannah Telle Reveals Life Is Strange ‘Definitely Exceeded All of my Expectations'"

This piece paraphrase the interview that ran the week before.

Hannah Telle ‘100 Percent’ Interested in Reprising Role for Life Is Strange Sequel

This reports on the interview she gave the fan-made Blackwell Podcast. She is quoted for answering she would reprise her role. The article then switches to the producer saying there will be new characters. Not SIGCOV combing the 3. IgelRM (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lungen

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

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local politician/attorney. Sources are all quite local. SportingFlyer T·C 03:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump proposal for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip

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

You couldn't create a better violation of WP:NOTNEWS if you tried. Unfortunately, this seems like a recent pattern for the editor who created the article. (See De-Trumpification, Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley, Executive Order 14168, etc. Novemberjazz 05:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extreme WP:RECENTISM on yesterdays newscycle and a prime example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. More than adequately covered in Trumps main article at this point.Golikom (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a bit rich coming from someone who has edit-warred[38][39] against various editors to remove it, resulting in it not being in the article at the moment. What some people don't seem to understand is that when the president of a country proposes ethnic cleansing of millions of people in another country, eliciting strong condemnations from the governments of other countries, it is no longer domestic American politics or something that belongs buried deep down in U.S.-centric articles focused entirely on "presidential terms" or things like that, and even those articles don't cover it (thanks to editors insisting a plan for ethnic cleansing with international condemnations is "undue" or whatever). --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Do not falsely accuse others of edit warring. The trump article is on BRD sanctions. I've not restored an edit even once. If it's not currently in the article that's down to other editors.Golikom (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Within less than an hour[40][41], you made no less than two reverts without any attempt (at that time) to engage in discussion, in flagrant violation of the discretionary sanctions in place in that article. That is edit warring, and not for the first time. The content under discussion is not included in the article now as a result of that edit warring because I and other editors are less inclined to engage in that kind of behavior, so we haven't reverted it, but there is an ongoing discussion. Also, a key point here is that this highly notable international affair is not covered in any article (other than this one) due to that kind of resistance. --Tataral (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There is absolutely no violation. This is what is stated on the talk page "
  You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
  
  A single revert is not edit warring. I explained my revert in the edit summary. That is sufficient. You' ve rightly then taken it to talk., where it is under discussion. No one is in breach of anything here. Golikom (talk) 18:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trump says he wants to 'clean out' Gaza.--Arbeiten8 (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eventually there may be an article on Trump policy towards Gaza, but him just saying something is not the basis for an article and WP is not a news site. MarcGarver (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could potentially be covered in any number of other articles — Second presidency of Donald Trump, United States support for Israel in the Gaza war, Political positions of Donald Trump, etc. It might even make sense at some point to have a standalone article on Donald Trump's positions on the war in Gaza. But having an article about this one statement (which is not even the first time Trump and his surrogates have expressed similar sentiments) is the definition of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. MCE89 (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Literally a plan for ethnic cleansing of millions of people. Unfortunately, some editors have a pattern of attempting to obstruct reasonable coverage of the Trump administration. --Tataral (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not a plan, it was a vague statement designed to piss certain people off (albeit rightfully so). An article for everything awful thing Trump says or does is not resistance nor would its inclusion on Wikipedia validate his awfulness.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed this article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS and is a prime example of WP:TRUMPCRUFT. The content can be merged into any of the articles mentioned by MCE89: there's no need for a standalone entry.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Egregious violation of WP:NOT that needs to be "cleaned out". Geschichte (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TRUMPCRUFT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:TRUMPCRUFT. There are a number of articles about his views and presidencies where such information can go. In the event that the administration starts to act on such an idea and turn it into an actual proposal, perhaps in time it could warrant inclusion as an article.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:TRUMPCRUFT and WP:PROMO. Wikipedia does not exist to write about everything any politician thinks up. — Maile (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:TRUMPCRUFT, and also an incredibly small page that could easily be merged to the thousand other articles revolving around Trump. Ultimately WP:RECENTISM, unless this evolves from something more than a comment like, you know, it actually happening, this article really does not need to exist. jolielover♥talk 10:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of North American ski resorts

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts

Articles for deletion/Comparison of North American ski resorts

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

Almost all of the data is cribbed from self-published sources, i.e. the websites of the various ski areas. They are notorious for inflating their statistics. I pointed this out almost four years ago and placed a "self-published" tag on the page, but nothing has improved in the intervening time. Finding good, solid, independent, reliable sources for these numbers is difficult if not impossible. Moreover, the ticket price has not been updated in five years and is off by almost a factor of two in some cases - it's an impossible maintenance task to keep that column up to date. The rest of it mostly reiterates marketing fluff.

See my comment on the talk page from Mar 2020: Talk:Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts#Self-published_tag Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. There's already a tree of categories for ski resorts, don't need more than that. And as OP said the data reliability is a big question mark. Wizmut (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following how the article is WP:SYNTH. Care to elaborate? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statististics can easily be updated with new information in terms of the ticket price. As for categories such as "skiable acreage" and "vertical drop", I agree that the article should have original research, but there really isn't a practical way, although not impossible, to find that information other than from the resort themselves (which is dubious but the most accurate information we have). However, the amount of trails, ski lifts, and annual snowfall is easily verifiable information that is publicly accessible. I also do not believe this article acts as a WP:DIRECTORY, and provides encyclopedic value, thus need not be deleted. I could also see this article getting merged with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. Googoogootoo (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that "...the article should have original research" That goes against WP:OR.

That said, the most accurate numbers for vertical drop can be found by consulting the US Geological Survey data or similar official sets of data. There's a really nice web UI to that data at openskimap.org and anybody can pull up a ski area, find the top and bottom, and get the vertical drop. If you do that, you'll see that the numbers in this article are often way off. You'll also be doing original research which we are not supposed to base article content on.

So, the basic problem is that much of the data in the article is demonstrably false, and there's no good, solid, independent, reliable sourcing for the actual numbers that would allow us to bring the article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It would be great if we could find solid data, but we can't, and we shouldn't be repeating information that is clearly false. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: everyone knows that we have never published original content. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts participants: Miminity (talk · contribs), Maile66 (talk · contribs), Reywas92 (talk · contribs), Marincyclist (talk · contribs), and Dream Focus (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. All the sources are self-published. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and potentially merge with (/split into) List of ski areas and resorts in the United States/List of ski areas and resorts in Canada. While the article could use more independent sourcing and trimming of the likely outdated lift ticket prices, this is good content and organization and should be kept similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts. Data such as elevation and number of lifts are more informative than the simple bulleted list and does not make it a catalog. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article provides a good way of comparing North American ski resorts and has useful content that goes beyond simply a list of names and cities like the main list. I suggest renaming the article to "List of..." so it is in-line with convention, and removing ticket prices per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but it should be kept and the statistics can be updated as-necessary. Marincyclist (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The relevant question my be found at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process which says:

Verifiability: if an article is unverified, but verification seems possible, it may be worth keeping. However, articles with mainly unverifiable content should be deleted.

So, does it seem possible to verify all or even most of this data? If so, it may be worth keeping. But I haven't heard of a path towards finding reliable sourcing for most of the data, so my take is that it does not seem possible i.e. the article contains "mainly unverifiable content".

Comment There are websites such as onthesnow.com, slopestat.com, skiresort.info, and powderhounds.com that all contain most of the relevant statistics listed in this article. I also don't think ski resorts "inflating" figures is really as common as some say. Marincyclist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick spotcheck shows that onthesnow.com & slopestat.com just reproduce whatever numbers the resorts provide. skiresort.info gets some of them right (as per USGS data) and repeats what the resorts claim for others. powderhounds.com only covers US West & Vermont. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid navigational list to list all the articles for a similar thing together. They should be split by nation though. Valid information list. Lists are more useful than categories because more information is listed, helping people find what they are looking for far better than a category can. I don't believe the prices should be listed, since that's not usually something that is done. Even in the articles linked to it doesn't list the price. I don't think any business an legally lie about information, so no reason to doubt how much snowfall or measurements they have. If a government website can be found listing the information, or a reliable source that list this information, that would be better to use as references. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment shouldn't this be List of North American ski resorts? Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat order of battle

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wrong venue. As things currently stand, this page is necessary as the order of battle is split into two pages, one for each adversary, per WP:ORBAT. I wouldn't oppose merging the two order of battle pages together at this title, or merging both into the article about the battle as proposed, but we need a WP:MERGE discussion, not a deletion discussion. I will say ~~this~~ the current arrangement is the typical setup for most ACW battles, including most minor ones. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no need for 4 separate pages about 1 minor battle. Mztourist (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nom proposed a merge, not deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – the nom made a mistake about the venue (that's fine), but this can be closed and renominated as a merge proposal per Mdewman. Cremastra (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Withdrawn by nominator without opposition. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. I nominated the wrong article by mistake. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

DC Singh

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

Most sources here marked sponsored, the Arabian Times and LLM article lack a byline and are written in a promotional tone. I've added a potentially usable (though promotional) article from the Scottish Field, one source is insufficient. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, India, and Punjab. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 04:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– all sponsored and paid-for coverage, as well as recycled content from self-published material on his own website. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added more sources to the page from different websites for a well-rounded reference. Iamharry090 (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not convinced that the added extra sources help in establishing notability (ones I've removed were not appropriate anyway). Procyon117 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conologue, Indiana

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

Appears to be an early post office back-added to the topos from an old map. Need more evidence that that of an actual settlement as these maps recorded post offices as well as actual towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker (p.101) says that this was a post office, and warns that we might have to search for Conlogue. So I did. The printed 1980s version of the GNIS database records this as "Conologue Post Office", which is a bit of a clue in itself. I found Conlogue in Jackson in an 1869 government listing of post offices.
But those of you fresh from the discussion of Fleming, Indiana (AfD discussion) will enjoy what I found after that, which was Conlogue in a table on p.65 of the 1876 Monitor Guide to Post Offices and Railroad Stations in the United States and Canada which says "(R.R. name, Fleming's)". So this is the earlier name for the post office by Fleming's station on the O&M.
But other than the shipping guides and post office directories: I found nothing.
Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Conologue and Fleming. Thanks for your effort, Uncle G, and if we have to do this much digging to find whether a place actually existed, and there is still uncertainty, then we don't have enough info for an article. Essentially a WP:V fail. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets WP:GEOLAND: a quick search of Newspapers.com shows that it had a school up to at least 1947, a cemetery, and a church in the 1960s and 1970s. There were still burials at Conologue Cemetery up to 2021. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming, Indiana

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

Not seeing evidence that this was more than a short-lived post office at a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Especially as Baker says (p.133) outright that it was a railway station that later gained a post office. ☺ After no success with a lot of histories and gazetteers, I finally located this as Fleming's in a table on page 80 of W. F. Allen's 1874 Gazetteer of Railway Stations in the United States and the Dominion of Canada. It was on the Ohio & Mississippi. That source says that the station served a population of 200, but makes no statement about what form that population took. Fleming's is in the station listing for the O&M in James Macfarlane's 1890 An American Geological Railway Guide too. The post office is in the 1899 USPS directory. But no Lippincott's nor the Thomas gazetteer has a Fleming or Fleming's, out of the several that they do have, in Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND. The only result I have found so far in Newspapers.com is this [42] from 1975, about a road crossing a railroad "at or near Fleming, Spencer-Redding Township", that two farmers used to get to their farms. It's not easy to search, as Fleming is a common surname, and there was a school in Duckcreek township called Fleming School five miles north and one mile east of Elwood, Indiana - but unlike Conologue, Indiana, it does not have lots of mentions as an inhabited place. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gikomba fire

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) as I cannot find sources for it that are not simply routine coverage contemporary to the fire. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are multiple sources for the event and others follow-up coverage, like BBC, DW, CNN, Kenya Star, The Nation, Nairobi News FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete The Nairobi News article specifically says that the issue at the market is that fires are common, basically every year of late. This implies that there's nothing special about this fire. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People are murdered everyday but some murders are being covered more than the other. So, if we are to follow your analogy, murders should not be covered on the encyclopaedia because obviously, people are being murdered everyday. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 at the new title of Pilot deviation. I would normally suggest waiting till an AfD has been completed to move a page, so as not to mess up documentation, but no harm done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brasher warning

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

Does not seem to be independently notable. ~~Level bust seems like a likely redirect/merge target.~~ Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A level bust is only one type of pilot deviation out of many, and therefore not a good redirect or merge target. It is like redirecting Fruit to Banana. I've heard ATC issue Brasher warnings for things like departing in the opposite direction and landing on the wrong runway. Polygnotus (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other plausible redirect targets? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I've watched a lot of VASAviation and played around with MSFS but I am not an expert. I don't think there are any plausible redirect/merge targets. I think the WP:COMMONNAME would be pilot deviation. While Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is probably possible to write an article about pilot deviations (but I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and I am not qualified to write such an article). Perhaps someone from the Aviation wikiproject can help? Polygnotus (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added another source into the article. This should suffice. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Polygnotus asked for my opinion at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Brasher warning. I would suggest that if it is kept it's moved to Pilot Deviation Notification, Pilot deviation notification, Pilot deviation or whatever is used worldwide and that "Brasher warning" is an American nickname for the term. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Pilot deviation notification with a redirect. "Brasher notification" is used only in the US, while the more general term is used world-wide. Risker (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: The scope of pilot deviation is a bit bigger than pilot deviation notification so I think that pilot deviation is a better article title. The notification itself is usually just ATC telling you to write down a telephone number. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. But the content we currently have available relates strictly to pilot deviation notification, not the general topic. Now, if someone with sufficient knowledge was to write an article about pilot deviation, then yes, pilot deviation notification should be one section of it. We don't have that article now, but we *do* have enough content that, with a few minor changes, would be a reasonable article on pilot deviation notification. I don't personally have sufficient knowledge to write such an article, but it wouldn't surprise me if one or more participants in this discussion do have that knowledge. Risker (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right now we have three sentences - just a definition and etymology. Only one other article links here, and only one other even includes the phrase "pilot deviation". Until and unless someone is able to flesh this out into a substantive article, I think merging to something like Aviation safety#Human factors (or moving to wiktionary) would be better. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Nah if you want to merge then maybe to Pilot error (although some pilot deviations are very intentional). But if "Pilot error" does not fall under WP:NOTDICT then pilot deviation does neither methinks. Polygnotus (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Pilot decision making#Difficulties? I suppose the warning is technically a result of difficulties rather than a type of difficulty, but this seems more to be a decision-making situation rather than a true error; as Polygnotus points out, sometimes it is a deliberate decision, although perhaps not a good one. Risker (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Risker, CambridgeBayWeather, and Wikiexplorationandhelping: see below Polygnotus (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC) I assume that sticking very close to the source material isn't a problem because its the FAA and therefore copyright free? It is pretty difficult to be creative when conveying factual information. [reply]

Extended content

Pilot deviations are actions of a pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation, often a failure to follow instructions from air traffic control.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Mar/AIRBORNE_PILOT_DEVIATIONS_-_GL_Region_FAASTeam_FY10_2nd_Qtr._Notice.pdf

Pilot deviations can be split in to ground- and airborne deviations.

Examples of airborne deviations are when a pilot strays from an assigned altitude or heading, or if they penetrate controlled airspace or restricted airspace without clearance.

Examples of groundbased deviations are taking off or landing without clearance, failing to hold short of a runway or deviating from an assigned taxi route.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/Avoiding%20Pilot%20Deviations.pdf

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Risker, CambridgeBayWeather, and Wikiexplorationandhelping: I added some stuff and moved it. Not sure what the procedure is. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Pilot deviation and (possibly) include a section on Brasher warnings. "Pilot deviation" seems to be the term for a pilot deviating from a flight plan, while "Brasher warning" refers to an ATC reporting a deviation/a pilot receiving a letter of investigation for a deviation. See the Aero Law Center page or the FAA's explanation of the ATC system (it's near the bottom). Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Started writing before move. Keep, as the above suggestions were implemented. Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this, Polygnotus. I have reached out to admins via discord to as for someone to review and close this discussion. Risker (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships

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

Utterly insignificant. No possible merge target at San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which would be a questionable page in itself, given that athletics lacks a high status in this micro-country. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which I just created. There's enough here for an article, for example "Eugenio Rossi dreams of first medal for San Marino at Euro Athletics Championships". --Habst (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that European Athletics is the organizer of the European Athletics Championships and therefore not an independent source Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-EA sources: [43], [44], [45]. I came into this one with a skeptical eye but I'm seeing the coverage, and the WP:NLIST argument for these types of articles (keeping them as encyclopedic indices of competitors) is also convincing to me. --Habst (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes

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

Subject is only notable due to her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr. - see WP:INVALIDBIO. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the comment on her notability tied to her husband. The only section that has sourcing is her Personal life. The career section is totally not sourced, but that section shows her notability. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Beauty pageants, American football, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. This person is clearly a big celebrity, but she doesn't have a lot of coverage in mainstream media, leading me to wonder why she's gotten so little coverage, at least from what I see on Googling, from them compared to what's in the article. Has there been a blacklist? Is she just famous for being famous? What's going on? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no answer from anyone else forthcoming, I'm going with "yes, the subject is famous, but not notable." Bearian (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are multiple claims to notability. She did more recently receive press from her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr, but she meets WP:SINGER for creating the Hawaiian Tropicè theme song, singing the Star Spangled Banner for various notable events, etc., WP:ENT for TV work such as Starz... CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGER says "regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials". Before listing this article, I looked but I couldn't find any reliable sources that predated her marriage to Sabàto.

If you are aware of any reliable sources that establish her notability as a singer (or anything else), please add them to the article. Without the existence of such sources, notability can't be proven and the article should be deleted. Martey (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Cherniyenko

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

In searches in both English and Ukrainian, almost literally nothing at all has come up—hardly even databases. Maybe I am missing something, but this player/manager appears to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADInstruments

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are routine coverage or directory listings. Deleted by PROD in 2006. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Technology, and New Zealand. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This one's borderline but I'm leaning Keep. This source from the University of North Carolina at Pembroke discusses the use of ADInstruments products in their biology coursework, and this article from the Otago Daily Times is over the line for significant coverage. It's not ideal, but it is sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. WP:SNOWCLOSE & WP:CSK#6. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drents Museum heist

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

No need for a stand alone article for this incident. Most of the content in this article was copy-pasted from Drents Museum without attribution. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Crime, and Netherlands. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, already has a sizeable amount of information, and there will very likely be additional information coming within the following days. I see no reason such a notable event with reliable sources should be deleted. Rin (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Archaeology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:N/CA is the relevant guideline here. See inclusion criteria, # 2: The event is very likely to be notable because it has widespread international impact and is very widely covered in diverse sources. That said, copy-paste from an existing article without attribution is not the way to do it. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article where it can be discussed, if it really does become so notable that a split is required that can always be done later. It is premature and unnecessary to not just cover this in the relevant articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Includes a number of notable news sources, which are continually growing as the investigation continues to develop. Cheers! Johnson524 02:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets all aspects of WP:NEVENTS. And it transcends the museum, because it has an impact on the country of Romania as a nation with various consequences. 206.0.71.40 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:CSK #6 (it's currently linked on the main page). ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bongkosh Rittichainuwat

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

Doesn't have enough references to prove notability. Borderline, but still lacking as an academic administrator. Awards don't have any references, including the poetry chanting award. Qylt (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Travel and tourism, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berger (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:2DABS and WP:PARTIAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete as written. I find no instances of other confusingly similar names. BD2412 T 02:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations

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

Beyond being a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is only supported by a few sources (largely for the X-Men '97 portion) and can be considered trivia, this information seem better suited to note, if applicable and notable, in each series' respective articles rather than its own article (I do believe X-Men '97 already has some of this information in its "Writing" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lorstaking (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the portions referenced to secondary sources to X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97, respectively, in the spirit of WP:AtD. Daranios (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can't speak with certainty for the original series, but with X-Men 97 there are various articles about the comic book issues/storylines than inspired each individual episode, as well as some of the differences between across mediums. In a few instances, I've seen the same with episodes from the OG cartoon too.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as I noted, why does this specific list article need to exist then? I've pointed out how this material is already covered at the X-Men '97 article where it is most appropriate. This article is just WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]