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

< February 04	February 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Abdul Aziz Abdul Nabi

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

Subject fails GNG and NSPORT for not having SIGCOV from IS, RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in length and dept for verification. Cassiopeia talk 23:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 23:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyriek Igwe

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

Non-notable WWE developmental wrestler who made his debut less than two years ago. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.I'm fine with however it goes either way, but for me I think he has held a prominent role these past couple of months on both NXT and Impact due to faction he's formed with Wes Lee. If he shouldn't have an article, more than half the NXT roster shouldn't. He's been featured more on NXT this past 2 months than majority of the roster. Rickyc123 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:SPORTSPERSON Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue that being on TV weekly in a key role is notable. NJTANK999 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are unbolded Keeps here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve Marine

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

It doesn't look like this business meets WP:NCORP. I couldn't find much other than passing mentions in local coverage or primary sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Florida. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a major player in the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse salvage program, and perhaps the largest major private operator. Shall update the article to reflect this. kencf0618 (talk) 10:39, 30 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!} 22:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be an abundance of coverage.

And more. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Englert

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

Non-notable business executive. After reviewing in New Page Review, I gave this one some time to breathe and unearth some more sources, but I'm not convinced they exist based on my search. The sources in the article do not support WP:GNG: we have a brief mention (one paragraph) in an Arizona Republic article about Englert's successor's appointment, which itself appears to be based on a Discount Tire press release that ran in another local outlet. He's briefly mentioned in a list of Phoenix area CEOs and in a list of companies in that area, and receives a single passing mention in a Detroit business publication. An in-depth profile on the website of his university is non-independent since it's profiling a successful alumnus. All told, it appears that Englert does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Discount Tire. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Abdul Zahra

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

Subject fails GNG and NSPORT for not having SIGCOV from IS and RS where by the sources talk above the subject in dept and length for V. Cassiopeia talk 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 22:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Aravena

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

Declined prod with reason he was Pan american champion. I could not find sources to verify this. Google news comes up with a Chilean politician with the same name. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Note he did not finish the sole Olympic event he was in. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Chile. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Pan American champion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Iansiti

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

After nominating the article for Roy Levien, I came across this article for the co-author of Mr. Levien's book. Same issues as before, doesn't meet WP:GNG, and clearly a WP:COI problem based on the edit history. One of the references is literally his CV. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Italy, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe speedy keep WP:SK3 as an invalid nomination that does not consider the correct notability criteria. The named chair at Harvard passes WP:PROF#C5 (which is not about sourcing/publicity unlike GNG), heavy citations [1] appear to pass #C1, and multiple book reviews of multiple books (JSTOR 4166241, JSTOR 43240116, JSTOR 24131653, doi:10.1080/09700161.2021.1918951, doi:10.1111/radm.12489) pass WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input. Even if he does meet notability, I still believe the article is problematic enough to warrant at least sending to draft if nothing else, I wouldn't call it a speedy keep. Maybe I'm missing a specific policy but the article is essentially a resume. All of the references are either his CV, or papers he wrote. Kylemahar902 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftification is for new articles. This one is 15 years old. See WP:DRAFTNO #1. And your comment about his CV appears to be doubling down on your failure to apply the correct notability criterion. WP:PROF is not about independence of sourcing. And even if we were using GNG, it would be about sourcing that can be found about the subject, not merely about the sources already listed as references in the article. See also WP:DINC. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Webber

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

Subject is not notable, does not meet WP:ATHLETE and does not have enough news coverage. Tarkminas (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. Tarkminas (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently she did win a gold medal in the 2003 World Rowing Championships, so I get plenty of hits on random sports statistics websites and such, but not seeing anything at in terms of coverage. I think someone created this article along with others like Liane Malcos just to fill out the redlinks, and such articles do not contribute to the value of the encyclopedia. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brice, Indiana

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

THis appears to be a rail point; the only sure hit I get on this indcates a stockyard there attached to the railroad. Searching is severely clogged by the surname (especially her) and by a Civil War battle, so it's possible I missed something. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a station on the Nickel Plate Road (NKP) according to the railway books. I haven't found a source that definitively links it to Calvin S. Brice but I strongly suspect that that is the Brice you are looking for. I can find it on a map of the NKP in ISBN 9780801890024 which was published in 2003, so this one even has modern sources as a railroad stop. The coördinates in the article are off; actual maps place it to the south, right on the railway line, which is a pretty big hint. The best that I have for anything else is Milton T. Jay's 1922 History of Jay County, Indiana which merely has a William H. Hutchens opening a general store and running the post-office at Brice in 1899. I get nothing from the contemporary gazetteers. There's no Brice in the 1902 Lippincott's for example. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Lechner

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

WP:TOOSOON. Barely played (535 minutes) on the second tier in Austria and now plays for a B team. No significant and independent coverage to be found in the article, in the German Wikipedia or in Austrian media. (only press releases). Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Austria. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waleed Al-Enezi (footballer, born 1996)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only played 10 minutes in the highest Saudi league, the rest on lower levels. The WP:ROUTINE transfer and contract announcements unfortunately do not make him more notable. The creator of the article was a prolific sockpuppeteer and is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Saudi Arabia. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Coristine

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

WP:BLP1E User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 19:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all notable only for being part of DOGE:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluethricecreamman (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. They are not known for a single "event" because being part of a department is not an "event". It is also not possible to claim that they are low-profile individuals when they are making headlines worldwide in highly reliable media outlets. In fact, Wikipedia should aggregate and accumulate the knowledge produced, so it is obvious that no single source will contain all the content of the article. For example, while researching Luke Farritor in reliable sources, I found a freely licensed photo of him and discovered that he is the son of Shane Farritor and has two siblings, Anna Farritor and Matthew Farritor. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rattlingbog55, DividedFrame, Vincelord, Very Polite Person, 2020tcat, QuietHere, DavidBrooks, Bagelpigeon, and Johnny Rose 11: pinging. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:07, 5 February 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 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a low-profile individual. WP:LOWPROFILE has a clause specifically for cases like this: Eminence. High-profile: Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in a field of research, a sport, a business market, a political sphere, or other area of human endeavor, usually at more than a locally-significant level. Their position is not one that of a normal government employee; they've intentionally sought out a position where they're one of a small handful of people to whom huge swaths of the federal government are required to justify their jobs - ie. a position of immense power and influence within the political sphere. Seeking or accepting such a position isn't compatible with being low-profile, which means that WP:BLP1E, which applies only to low-profile individuals, cannot apply here. EDIT: Nothing in the "eminence" section implies that the power or authority is relative to the specific organization they are in; and the idea makes no sense. The point of the Eminence clause is that people who hold vast power over others are never low-profile, which clearly applies here. Part of the reason he is notable is also because the unusual amount of power he has been directly vested with puts him outside of the usual hierarchies and structures a government functionary would be a part of. Coristine currently holds immense power within the US government; there is every indication that his personal decisions can directly affect vast numbers of lives, with only a single person (Musk) between him and the president of the United States - this is not a standard government functionary mechanically following orders, but someone who is personally making decisions with major policy implications (again, the unusualness of this is part of why he's notable.) The suggestion that he could conceivably be considered a low-profile individual is utterly absurd. --Aquillion (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for exactly the same reasons as RodRabelo7. And, again for those reasons, I added him as a notable alum of Rye Country Day School. David Brooks (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aquillion and others ignore the operative term in LOWPROFILE: Has sought or holds a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority in... Low level employees of the DOGE have not sought or held a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority. They are low level employees. The term "a position of power or authority" does not refer to general authority, but to authority over the organization in question. The only person confirmed to hold (or seek) such a role in the DOGE as of this time is Musk himself, and it's likely he will stay that way. In other words, these are all low profile employees whose notability is solely based on their employment in a notable organization. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does refer to general authority or power... "In" in that context clearly means the field, not an organization (there won't even be an organization in most of the contexts this applies to). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The field, the organization, etc. Not power in general. A position of authority in a field would be, for example, a researcher with many published papers who presents at conferences on a subject. Not a random lab employee who works for that person - even if they are cited in their research. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, just the field. If you want to rewrite it you can propose that, but for now it means what its always meant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone cannot be a "position of... power or authority" within a field. They can be in a position of pre-eminence within a field. But there is no "head of the field of science", for example. These people are low level employees, not those with positions of pre-eminence, power, or authority in the field. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources do not say that these are low level employees, in fact they are saying that within numerous government organizations they occupy a position of pre-eminence, power, or authority exceeding that of anyone else within that organization. When people oppose them they seem to be forced out of government. Even within OPM the reliable sources say that Coristine reports directly to the OPM's chief of staff, so not a low level employee. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By your rationale, every OPM employee who has ever been named within sources is notable, because they too hold massive sway over an agency's staff from outside that agency. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then you do not understand my rationale and are thus tilting at windmills. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, not policy, and you cut off a relevant part of the sentence. I'd definitely say that he "Has sought or holds a position of ... power ... [in a] a political sphere ... at more than a locally-significant level." If news reports are correct, these are not "low level employees." For example, from WIRED: "Both Bobba and Coristine are listed in internal OPM records reviewed by WIRED as “experts” at OPM, reporting directly to Amanda Scales, its new chief of staff. ... Sources tell WIRED that Bobba, Coristine, Farritor, and Shaotran all currently have working GSA emails and A-suite level clearance at the GSA, which means that they work out of the agency’s top floor and have access to all physical spaces and IT systems, according a source with knowledge of the GSA’s clearance protocols." Nor is this some minor "event." This is a series of law-breaking actions in huge federal agencies. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to report on "a series of law-breaking actions". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it is or isn't depends entirely on whether those law-breaking actions are notable. These are. Do you object to WP's articles on the Watergate scandal and the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse? They're just "a series of law-breaking actions" that WP is not here to document, right? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't depend on that at all. Wikipedia is not here for you to try to right great wrongs. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all three pass GNG (the level of significant coverage they have received has been staggering... That it is unprecedented counts towards notability, not against) and none meet the three standards for evaluating BLP1E. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, all of these "DOGE people" now trivially pass notability requirements, and more stories/news/sources are emerging daily--there is no logical or reasonable assumption this will go backward. They are notable. Keep. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aquillion. Gamaliel (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the DOGE article there are a handful of BLP-related issues here that covering as part of DOGE (or if there is a more specific article on its takeover of various offices). First, while we know these people are associated with DOGE, all of there other actions within the other agencies are based on claims, and not founded evidence. This is akin to the same logic treat those suspected of crimes per BLPCRIME, in that we should not be posting claims about low profile individuals. And while some above have asserted they aren't low profile, we have to be fully aware of the grassroots witch hunt to identify who these people are and what expertise they have, which we absolutely should be accounting for in light of BLP matters and not given the grassroots outing extra attention just because some RSes have documented that. RECENTISM also is an issue here as they have only been known for a few days, and we are rushing to create articles on a burst of coverage. These are all hallmarks of why BLP1E should apply, and taking the recommended action there of covering them in the context of the event they are associated with (either the DOGE or the takeover event article). If I had my full druthers, I would not even name them, as it's not that any individual one is more notae than the others but it's this ground of young men Musk brought in to do these actions that is the focus of the story in most outlets, so their individual identity is far less important info than the group's existence. But since RSes have named them, I can also see this argument hard to argue. But merging seems far more reasonable and appropriate until we know we can write more about them as individuals beyond the scope of DOGE or the event. Masem (t) 22:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to add that my reason is not at all influenced by the fact that Musk has claimed publishing these names is illegal or that the DC DOJ office has claimed they will pursue those that published them. Other RSes have published them, and if there were a true legal issue, the WMF would likely step in. My concerns on the inclusion is strictly based on BLP policy in which we should take care with people suddenly thrust into the news by choice or not. — Masem (t) 23:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: What is your source that this is the result of a "grassroots witch hunt" and not just normal reporting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal observation of what I'm seeing on social media verses how these names are coming up in news reports. Where their names come up on media reports seem to align with more subjective pieces that are warning about a possible coup attempt like the Wired pieces, rather than from sources that are trying to document the situation. I cant provide hard evidence of this (outside of the witchunt on social media such as reddit moderating a major forum that was threatening these people with violence) it's just my gut feeling as these events unfold in real time. — Masem (t) 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely some concerns to be had here, considering this happened. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What happened? Reddit? Is it a new Wikimedia project? 2804:14D:5C32:4673:35F4:4DDB:D84E:3B8A (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the link in case people don't want to click it: The r/WhitePeopleTwitter subreddit, which typically invites people to share funny posts from X, has been banned for 72 hours after some users posted comments calling for violence against members of the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). Some1 (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per @Masem. These people are relevant because they work at DOGE, not in themselves, with the possible exception of Ethan Shaotran who was covered in some media before. The sourcing in the articles also is very thin despite "headlines worldwide", considering we're citing primary sources, Youtube videos, and similar things in quite a lot of the articles, and still only get to like two paragraphs for each of them. And yes, the "witchhunt" argument also applies to a degree, considering this also happened, which is strangely enough not brought up in any of the articles as far as I can tell.

There's also good arguments to believe this is an instance of WP:RECENTISM. This WIRED article from today cites a completely different engineer, not bringing up the six guys at all. This article also clarifies that Coristine reports to Amanda Scales, which is even clarified in the article right now. So far I haven't seen much that would indicate they themselves hold direct decision power. Thus I don't see how WP:LOWPROFILE' clause as cited above applies here so far. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Mystic Cornball would you mind disclosing your previous account(s)? Such a strange behavior indeed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My previous account is quite literally disclosed on my Talk page. Mystic Cornball (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Identified members and in that section, include a couple of sentences about each members' background. Agree with Masem that they aren't notable enough for standalone articles, but at the same, they are being covered by RS primarily in the context of DOGE, so a short paragraph about each member in the DOGE article would be fine, I think. Some1 (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably would make sense add Luke Farritor to the nomination as well. Akash Bobba and Gautier Cole Killian only exist as redirects so far. Mystic Cornball (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different case. Please don't use this AfD to push things through. Open a different AfD if you must. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How? We already have three of Musk's lackeys in this one, what makes Luke Farritor's article different? Mystic Cornball (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been substantive discussion, it should not be added to this nomination but instead nominated separately. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Mystic Cornball (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there was a discussion on WP:BLPN and someone pointed out Luke was a Thiels fellow and won some contest.

is a WP:BLP2E situation with Luke, which was why I didn't bother grouping him alongside others. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 03:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per Masem, not enough here for a standalone article.-KH-1 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom & Masem... Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, source mentions are WP:BREAKING, and will more than likely fail the WP:TENYEARTEST unless one or another of them rises above "lackey" status... - Adolphus79 (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There really isn't anything to say on them as individuals. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Engineering, Software, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Department of Government Efficiency per nomination (not opposed to a merge so long as BLP rules are being respected). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect all Being in the news now does not mean they actually have eminence or a high profile. News is clearly all within the context of DOGE's activities and as a group, not about their personal biographies, and individual pages are not warranted. Reywas92^Talk 04:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolshevism

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 Withdrawn by nominator.‎

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

I'll preface this by acknowledging that this article is adequately sourced and well-written; and that the word "Bolshevism" is one that is actually used in reference to the early period of the Soviet Union between the Russian Revolution and the formalization of Marxism-Leninism. What I believe causes doubt for this article to exist is the lack of explanation for the actual existence of Bolshevism as a distinct ideology from Leninism- this article does not explain how it is different from anything in the Leninism article; or how the distinctive period from 1917 to the consolidation of power by Stalin is Bolshevism in particular and not another word for Leninism.

I would have opened this as as a merge proposal; however, there really does not seem to be much in this article that isn't already spun off from Leninism or Marxism-Leninism as articles. Already in the end of the lede it is explained that both Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists identify as Bolshevist in tradition; both of which also claim to be Leninist; putting further doubt to the classification of Bolshevism as a "Leninist current-" if it is one, then who are the Leninists who are not Bolshevists? There also is much to this page that seem to pertain to Marxism-Leninism only and not the Bolshevist period- such as "Socialism in One Country," which this article itself explains is an invention of the Stalinist period well after the death of Lenin.

My contention is that Bolshevism; according to everything explained in this article, is simply a synonym for Leninism; which later spun off to the ideologies of Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism, etc; and that if it is distinct from Leninism, then neither this article nor do the sources provided seem to assert that it is. The sources provided- Harding, Evans, and Van Ree; all seem to use the terms at most interchangeably, in particular the Harding book is titled "Leninism," and only uses the term Bolshevism in contrast with Menshevism. Therefore a separate article is not warranted. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This probably should have been discussed as a merge request on the article's talk page. Thriley (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Leninism isn't Bolshevism. Leninism is a political practice of Lenin; Bolshevism is a political practice of the Bolshevik Party. From the death of Lenin to the 19th Congress of the Communist Party, the entire party was fighting for the interpretation of the continued development of the party and the Soviet State. Without an article about Bolshevism, we simply can't understand Trotsky, Stalin, the struggle within the Communist Party in the 1920s and 1930s, the Great Purge, and the National Socialists' views towards the Soviet Union (that was based on hating Bolshevism, not Leninism). Not to say that after deleting it, such articles as National Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism will be left unexplained.
That's why Bolshevism is a current of Leninism, not a synonym: there were many interpretations of what Leninism is. Rosa Luxemburg accepted Leninism as practice but criticized Bolshevism as a practice of the Bolshevik Party. Simply saying, Bolshevism is just one of the Leninist tendencies. MarcusTraianus (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your argument but it's unsupported by the article itself- nothing in the Bolshevism article explains any difference in the current of thinking proposed by Lenin and the practice of this thinking in the Bolshevik party of Russia. The examples of National Bolshevism and Jewish Bolshevism, for example, are not explained as being specifically based off Bolshevism rather than the broader spectrum of Leninist practice. You mention Luxemburg as accepting Leninism but not Bolshevism- if this is true, then it is not explained in the article, nor do I see it in the sources that they are accepted as different ideologies. My deletion proposal was done after trying to read the sources mentioned and not seeing how Bolshevism is any different in Leninism- if the article can better clarify this, then I'll likely retract it. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your argument but it's unsupported by the article itself. The article is not in its final form. I created only the beginning of it; it should be expanded. Deleting the article about Bolshevism is simply pointless; it is arguably the most impactful phenomenon in the history of Russia of the 20th century that has its consequences to date. I will expand it during summer if you wish to distinguish it better, but I have my personal academic pursuits as of now. Just wait 4 months, and it will be done. Until then, leave the article in its current form. MarcusTraianus (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing a deletion policy argument anywhere above for an administrator hitting a delete button, and this was quite happily a redirect to bolshevik from 2003 until 2020, which is clearly the other option here but needs no administrator to enact. This is a waste of AFD participants's and administrators's time. Articles for deletion only. It's in the name. Uncle G (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm confused why this has been nominated, it's clearly sourced, and just looking at it, appears to be one of those political science topics that should have its own article. I am not a Bolshevik, nor have I even been one, nor do I believe in Bolshevism, but it exists. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nagadai

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

In this disambiguation page, none of the articles listed have titles related to "Nagadai". It is unclear why this page was created. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If a disambiguation page has nothing to do with the articles it contains, it need not exist. Eelipe (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at open AfDs, I am also nominating the following related pages because they follows the same format:

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Based on my understanding, "dai" is the Japanese equivalent of saying "uni" instead of university, so these disambiguation pages are basically for "Naga uni". Given the double step from shortening to "Naga Uni" to the Japanese usage of "Nagadai", I do not think this is an appropriate disambiguation page for the English Wikipedia, but I'm happy to be corrected. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Removing my delete !vote after further consideration. I haven't landed on a new !vote yet. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep per my comments to Absurdum4242 below. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly case of WP:DABPARTIAL. Also "Dai" is the shorten term for University in Japanese. (shorten for Daigaku) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no it isn't. Daigaku is always just that; the shortened form only occurs in contractions of university names. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, please bear in mind that I only took Japanese for a couple years and it's been a while, and nor do I get a lot of nuances. 長大, when read as ながだい / nagadai, is actually an abbreviation for Nagano University and Nagaoka University. [2]2 . However, 長大 is apparently read as choudai when referring to Nagasaki University. So neither of the deletion arguments works right now. That being said, I'm not entirely sure who will be typing in an abbreviation in romaji on the English Wikipedia. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It's not appropriate for this Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - unlikely search terms. --John B123 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary disambiguations for non-notable nicknames are just silly. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the term is one which may be searched for, then the disambiguation page is a good one. Same rationale for Hirodai. Such pages conform to WP:DISAMBIG because "for [the] word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
The foreign language argument is a red herring. For example, we disambiguate Jiaoda and Beida as Jiaotong and Peking Universities. Slightly less straightfoward example is how we disambiguate Shida to various Chinese universities (and other topics). Oblivy (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have moved Oblivy's comment from the Fukudai discussion, which I have procedurally closed. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jiaoda and Beida are redirects, not the titles for disambiguation pages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that below, with respect to whether the target article has to include the search term. But I think of disambiguation and redirect as serving two serve similar functions -- under WP:NOPRIMARY two redirects can equal a disambiguation page -- and think the two redirects I mentioned are of value for discussion. Oblivy (talk) 21:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a source for Kyukodai being an abbreviation for Kurume Institute of Technology - and if so, how's it written? I've only found uses of it for Kyushu Institute of Technology (as 九工大, e.g. in names of stations near the campuses). Adam Sampson (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there seem to be slightly more hits for Kyushukodai (九州工大) for the latter... Adam Sampson (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have moved Adam Sampson's comments from the Kyukodai discussion, which I have procedurally closed. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not appropriate for English Wikipedia, I agree with Significa liberdade, Thanks for the ping. I reviewed it because it was just a disambiguation. I will keep this in my mind for future. Taabii (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
九工大　(valid abbreviation in kanji [3]) is read as　ききゅうこうだい / kyuukoudai not "kyukodai" so that's horribly mistitled. Delete as an obvious error. Sorry, closer, that's the last clear vote you're getting from me.
広大/ひろだい/hirodai is used to refer to Hiroshima University and Hirosaki[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] in several English academic journals, websites, and books but the primary topic is doubtlessly the monotypic genus of parasites named for Hiroshima University.[11][12]. Given the fact that this one actually is apparently used in English, keep? But the genus is the primary topic, undoubtedly, so keep and retitle to encourage creation? Or maybe delete, then when the next UPE gaming AP makes the genus page, add a hatnote? Or temporarily redirect to Hiroshima, because my sources seem to indicate that's the primary topic of the two(at least in English, probably in Japanese too) and add a hatnote to it instead? and then replace
Fukudai is actually a dab page at jaWiki under a kanji ja:福大, and two of the universities seems to actually use it in their English-language publishing [13][14] but also it has made its way over to English language publications as a fairly common species name, [15][16][17][18][19][20] presumably after one of the universities? (Anybody feel like finding some 1960s and 1970s Japanese entomology journals and finding out?) Also, it's mentioned (unsourced) at University of Fukui and Fukushima University. If a redirect was made from Fukudai to either of those, it would end up at RfD and the result would likely be disambiguate. So it's not unreasonable that somebody will be searching for the word "fukudai" in English, but at the same time, we can't list any of the species names.. but to make it even more complicated, I actually know the word Fukudai as a series of maths problems and methods for calculating determinants[21] pg 136, so it would probably be a valid redirect if we had an article on that method, which we should because it appears to pass the GNG in modern English-language sources, never mind earlier ones, but also it appears to be much more a partial match and therefore I give up and I regret doing a BEFORE because I am loosing my mind trying, and unfortunately succeeding in finding ways these might be useful. I'm probably going to end up with Oblivy on these. Also, RfDing any of these (except for the mistake and Nagadai bc I can't find that used in English in this context, and, believe me, I've looked) would doubtless result in a result to disambiguate.
To the closer: I am sorry. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence at all that these strings are related to short forms of university names. Is it not vastly more likely for example that "Hirodai" is pseudo-Latin for a person called Hiroda? And fukudai (副題) is an ordinary word meaning "subtopic". Imaginatorium (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we're not a Japanese dictionary, so whether or not these are oridinary Japanese words or commonly used in Japanese isn't actually going to be a deciding factor. I'm looking for evidence that these words are used in English to refer to other the universities, or other topics. I've found that evidence for Fukudai, Hirodai, and Hokudai. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after finding this on googling "Fukudai" and this at "Aidai". Both seem enough to justify a redirect, and if there are multiple potential redirects from the same term then we need a dab page. I haven't checked all the others, but having found two out of two suggests that these are probably all valid dab pages. PamD 09:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also Hirodai here and here: both being used on English-language sites of the university itself. These aren't "non-notable nicknames" but are short forms used by the respective universities. These dab pages should be kept. PamD 09:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not appropriate or needed for English-language Wikipedia. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in most cases. I wouldn't agree that these are unlikely search terms in English. These abbreviations for universities show up fairly regularly in English translations of Japanese fiction - there are an awful lot of manga, anime and light novel stories set in high schools, so it's common for characters to talk about or visit universities. I'd go with Delete if there's no evidence that the abbreviation is correct (e.g. I'm not sure about one of the targets for Kyukodai as above), but otherwise it seems reasonable to have them as redirects or disambigs. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The question (obviously) is: what are these redirects for? How will they be used? And a valid answer would be that in some cases a reader has come across the contracted name of a Japanese university and wants to know about it. That is the plus; what is the minus? Well, when the reader comes across, perhaps "Tōdai", it is a romanisation of 東大, the short form of 東京大学. But a real dictionary (大辞林) lists five words with the reading 'tōdai', the first and most obvious being lighthouse (灯台), and including 東大 as the last. And of course, this is likely to get mangled as todai, some sort of mediaeval tax on paddyfields. So it gives a totally wrong impression that anything in Japanese that ended up as the string "todai" (more or less) refers to a university. See my comment above on the supposed insect names etc above. It also seems odd to start talking about reading fiction: if a novel translated from Polish talks about a "Reading University", how likely is it that this is actually distinguished from a "Writing University". Fundamentally Japanese has so many homophones that this sort of redirect is not reliable. The short forms are used very commonly, but only in appropriate context. Imaginatorium (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
supposed insect names I take issue with "supposed" here, as it implies I made them up. I found scientific papers about these insects under those names. They have been used. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course the insect names are correct, but they fairly obviously have nothing to do with the contractions used for university names. What is your evidence of "Fukudai" being used in English to refer to the university? Imaginatorium (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, did you get access to the old Japanese entomology journals then? I'm assuming the insects were most likely named after people called Fukudai (Like V. fukudai is) or after one of the universities. But, if you found the answer to then I suppose we'd better move on to that evidence you requested. Here you go! [22][23][24] GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its the equivalent of an acronym in English - it’s basically… ok, so imagine that there were several universities which all used the acronym UCLA. UCLA is not the actual name of any of them, it’s the acronym, but anyone searching for one of them using the acronym is going to be confused by the fact there are several all using the same acronym. It’s that. Anyone searching for Nagadai hoping to get information about Nagaoka University is going to be confused if they get information about Nagano University, or in fact Nagasaki University, which is the other university I definitely know uses Nagadai as a completely normal acronym (I went to the uni down the road, but did stuff there). Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would this be the equivalent of something like U of W? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Yes! Dead on that. Good catch @Significa liberdade, it’s pretty much exactly the same as that, meaning if this page is deleted, really all those “U of W” type pages need deleted too. Absurdum4242 (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this I have some follow-up comments. "U of W" is an English abbreviation, which makes it appropriate for the English Wikipedia. Thus, I think the question is whether Japanese-language abbreviations are appropriate. To determine that, I think it's worth seeing if a) these abbreviations are used in English materials and b) if we have other disambiguation pages for non-English shortenings. Another consideration is that we often keep non-English redirects if they relate to the target page, which would be the case here. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Many of the articles linked to from these dab pages don't mention the term. Neither of the articles linked from Nagadai mentions the term. The same applies to Kyukodai. In others there is only one article linked to that mentions the dab term. Applying MOS:DABNOMENTION, Nagadai and Kyukodai would be eligible for WP:G14 deletion and others should be changed to redirects. --John B123 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At present, we have DABs for references such as U of M. The first item is University of Maine, which does not mention U of M in the article. However, I would argue it makes sense to innumerable people that it would be called the U of M. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If University of Maine is referred to as U of M then this should be included in the article and suitably referenced. Its not our place here or the purpose of a dab page to speculate on what abbreviations or nicknames a university is referred to as however logical the reasoning is. This is why MOS:DABNOMENTION has been agreed by the community. That aside, it could be argued that U of M not complying with DABNOMENTION falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. --John B123 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking my example above Peking University doesn't include the term "beida" in its text (OK, in one of the citation article titles) even though it's unquestionably a prevalent nickname and possible search term. Beida is a redirect, where the guideline is a bit softer at "unlikely to be useful".
I agree that MOS:DABMENTION supports your position but the alternative to deletion, to not sweep away all these disambig pages, would be to add the mention to each redirected article (perhaps with a little {{cn}} next to it). Except for Fukudai, which @GreenLipstickLesbian seems to have sorted out, cite-wise. Oblivy (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely WP:BURDEN prevents us from adding a mention with {{cn}} tag? Following some of the points made during this discussion I'm swaying towards changing my !vote. However for this to happen the pages need to comply with MOS:DAB. Whilst I have no reason to disbelieve anybody who knows a university is referred to by one of the terms, per WP:V this is not enough. Nor in my view is the name of a nearby bus stop or station sufficient evidence. They may well have been named in reference to the university, but may have been named after something else. I'm also concerned about partial matches, for example Hokudai lists Tohoku University but the article gives Tohokudai as its colloquial name. --John B123 (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per PamD. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 12:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Based on the discussion here it would appear that the critical question is whether the Japanese abbreviations are used at all in English: this question has yet to be answered substantively.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This format is a legitimate rendering of common Japanese short forms in English and therefore valid DABS. For example for Fukudai, it is trivially easy to find usages in English by the listed universities in official communications on their websites: Fukuoka, Fukushima, Fukuyama, Fukui. This is already basically a WP:TRAINWRECK and individual nominations should be made where a proper WP:BEFORE indicates serious issues (e.g. as some have indicated with Kyukodai). These could probably be added to the lead (perhaps via second use of {{Nihongo}} specifically for the nickname?) -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Beckmann

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

Full professor with a Scopus | h-factor of 33. He has an honorary degree from Novosibrisk which might contribute to WP:NPROF#C3 (although it is unsourced) I am not certain. Citations look a bit weak for C1. I tagged it for unclear notability more than a month ago, nothing has changed. I feel it is time for more opinions about notability as I am on the fence with this one. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Germany, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Screening of soap operas in Australia

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This eyesore has been here since 2006?!? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I appreciate the eye to detail here, but this is massively WP:OR, including the annoyance about content edits to meet parental ratings. It's like a TVTropes nightmare where even they'd ask the major contributors to touch grass. Nate • (chatter) 23:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dance of Salome (paintings)

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

No secondary reliable sources on the page, nothing much else found which would meet the RS JMWt (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep A large series by an undoubtedly notable artist. A quick google search finds Lebanon and the Split of Life: Bearing Witness Through the Art of Nabil Kanso By Meriam Soltan · 2024, a large monograph on his woerk, which is bound to have coverage, but only has a few pages on preview. As he is a Lebanese artist, there is no doubt more in Arabic and probably French. Johnbod (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I'm not really in favour of citing works we haven't actually read and/or confirmed the content we believe it contains. If we haven't read it, we can't cite it. Even if it is true that this work does contain enough to meet the GNG, that's just one ref. I agree this is an important artist, that doesn't mean everything they did is individually notable. JMWt (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This seems to be a popular subject in art, but nothing for a "Nabil Kanso" that I can find... Either primary sourcing or wiki mirrors. Literally hundreds of paintings with this subject, but I don't see much critical notice for this series. Oaktree b (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No results for '"Nabil Kanso" "Dance of Salome"' in EBSCOhost, ProQuest, or newspapers.com. Jfire (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod's comment. This prolific artist's style is to do many paintings in a series, and this article is no different. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or just redirect to Nabil_Kanso#1980–2007 where there is already a paragraph on this which seems to have all of the exact same information. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a poor redirect target: that paragraph is sourced to Kanso's (defunct) personal site, and the site "apocalypsepainting.com" (which has an expired certificate) stating that the material is "From interview". So none of it is reliably/independently sourced. Jfire (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am definitely in favor of straight up deletion. Good points. I am mostly just pointing that paragraph out to say that anyone who wants to work on this has the alternative of trying to improve that paragraph. Asparagusstar (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete We really need so evidence of notability and one book which apparently isn't availalbe is just not enough. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samreen Kaur

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

I couldn't find a strong reason why this subject meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:ENT. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I've added references to it. And I'm surprised that the editor who tagged it for deletion discussion without any research. And another thing article has been approved by the New Pages Reviewer. Behappyyar (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Behappyyar: Getting marked as reviewed after an article is nominated for deletion does not mean it is “approved” by NPR. This is a process where every article sent to AfD, as long as it has no copyright or other speedy deletion violations, should be marked as reviewed. When we NPRs send articles to AfD, we also automatically mark them as reviewed. GrabUp - Talk 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay👍🏻 I've added references. Now, Let's see what the result will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will change your decision. When the article was tagged for deletion, it lacked references to movies and related to the subject see here, but after that I added references to it, which you can see here. Now it has improved considerably. I hope so, that you will reconsider to change your vote. Behappyyar (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Everything is either unreliable (mainly under WP:NEWSORGINDIA), interviews, or mentions. Nothing to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a difficult one. How do you establish the notability (or otherwise) of any entertainers from India? I found some significant coverage, but it's in a deprecated source. Several other sources are unreliable too - even The Times of India is considered unreliable, including having paid content for entertainers. Then, whether reliable or not, some of the sources added either just mention her name, or don't mention her at all (the review of Jind Mahi). This source [25] (already in the article) says that two music videos ‘Tujhe Bhoolna Toh Chaaha’ with Jubin Nautiyal and ‘Mombatiyaan’ with Maninder Buttar topped the charts. Is there other evidence that they did? If so, they might meet WP:NALBUM. If they do, was Kaur's role in the videos significant enough for that to count towards notability for her? RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8.0

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

Same reason as previous XfD Madeline1805 (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:GNG. Cremastra (talk) 00:59, 30 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!} 18:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cremastra. The fact that this article is in a list is not a reason for deletion, especially since lists barely provide any information about the individual articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remains (Steve Lacy album)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM - merge to Steve Lacy (saxophonist)? Orange sticker (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. Orange sticker (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Steve Lacy (saxophonist). Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. I can't find any reviews besides the Allmusic one, and that one is only three sentences. Jfire (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also reviewed by Richard Cook and Brian Morton in the Penguin Guide to Jazz (p773): looks like a brief review from snippet view but worth checking by anyone who has a book copy. AllyD (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This album is in the Selected Discography in the Grove Music Online article about Lacy [26], but without being discussed in the article text. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a review from Penguin and coverage in DownBeat. This, with AllMusic, is sufficient for WP:NALBUM #1. Online searches indicate that there are other reviews published in music magazines at the time it was released, but, as ever, these are difficult to access as they're from the pre-internet era. EddieHugh (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on the above additional refs and other mentions in notable publications DISEman (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy

AfDs for this article:

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

While trilogy is notable, subsequent (longer) concepts are very rarely discussed in depth in literary dictionaries, encyclopedias or other academic woks. This is a "4th" nom but as far as I can tell the previous noms were mass noms including, among other, better known tetralogy. Let's start from the most obscure end of this spectrum. My BEFORE as well as the quotations used for refs here do not show that 'heptalogy' has WP:SIGCOV anywhere, this is just a rarely used dict-def term) that can be redirected to Series fiction (which I am writing now) per WP:ATD-R. The article is just a dict def plus a list of notable heptalogies. Frankly, as I have recently begun incrasingly reviewing and writing about literature, I very much doubt we need more than the article on trilogy, as from the perspective of literature studies, there is no significance difference between the number of installments in a series outside 'short' and 'long'. For now, however, let's cut some dict-cruft. And if anyone wants to keep this - pleas show us how this meets SIGCOV. PS. Perhaps the list could be split into the list of heptalogies, if WP:LISTN can be shown to be met... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it you're bringing this here because of prior AfDs, rather than BLAR'ing it when your new article is ready? Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also called septology, cf. Jon Fosse. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have to say that the division of serial novels according to the number of volumes really makes no sense except as part of a general discussion of the class. Maybe. It's particularly obvious when you have something like the Earthsea books where for a long time there were three, then a fourth, and I lost track at how much further Leguin went after that. Does anyone refer to the series as an N-olgy where N is greater than three? And does anyone care what N equals? I'm just not seeing this as a meaningful class. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nice work on the Series fiction article! Obviously the exact number of works is not a defining characteristic that connects a series to others with multiple volumes. A curated list may be good for the main article, but not sorted by number of works. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously a notable topic and a useful entry (See the three precedent AfDs, please; lists of notable works that are considered so include https://www.babelio.com/liste/6017/Les-plus-belles-heptalogies (in French)). -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:LASTTIME. Congrats on managing to get three separate arguments to avoid combined into a single short sentence or two. Nor does your WP:UGC link confer even a whiff of notability to the topic, which if it were so obviously notable, wouldn't require resorting to a French source in the first place. Moreover, if you had actually looked at those previous nominations that you brought up, you'd see they were split between delete, keep, and no consensus. And the keep was part of a bundle so is harder to judge on its own. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (an edit-conflict with the above response), no, I disagree. Several of the sources currently used in Heptalogy discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series, stating that there is special significance to the author's choice of seven. The C.S.Lewis references are the obvious ones. These are rock-solid evidence that the concept is wikinotable. The same applies to trilogies, with even more force. The problem here is that our articles on both trilogies and heptalogies are rather poor, lazily producing lists rather than discussing the underlying concept as covered by literary scholars. But AfD is not for clean-up, and the lists aren't awful enough to merit TNT. Merging is a possibility, but I think it might unbalance the Series fiction article; trilogies, for instance, merit an absolutely enormous discussion because three has been seen as super-significant by many authors. There's also a strong need to distinguish, in series-fiction, between those series that are 3/4/5/6/7 by accident, with no underlying significance beyond the author's getting bored and moving on, and those where there is real meaning in the number. I think it's safer to cover this by having articles on the significance of a trilogy/heptalogy etc. rather than repeatedly trying to work out which series are "true" trilogies/heptalogies in the series fiction article. Elemimele (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele I am happy to be proven wrong, but could you expand the article with a few sentences based on the sources that "discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series"? That would help make it more than a list. That said, I expect most n-volume long series, including heptalogies, are that long simply because that's when the author run out of steam, without particular planning to reach that particular target number. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I don't feel strongly enough about it to buy the book on C S Lewis, which is obviously one of the major sources, and I don't propose to start writing articles without access to the sources. But the source does exist, which makes deletion awkward. We shouldn't delete just because we can't be bothered to read. Elemimele (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Without reading, we cannot be sure the sources exist or discuss the topic in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV (i.e. are not mentions in passing). As for the book, have you checked Z-library/Anna's Archive? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not checked Anna's archive because in my country it is illegal to do so. I do not think we should assume that a source we haven't read is inadequate. To be fair, it's actually the job of the proposer to demonstrate that the sources are inadequate. Elemimele (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that even the concept of a heptalogy is notable, let alone something that justifies creating a list of them -- a list with a criterion which can be difficult to settle without performing OR due to questions of whether books belong in the same series or not by being set in the same universe (Neal Stephenson's come to mind here). Nor have any convincing arguments been put forward. Frankly, I'm highly dubious that anything past trilogy really deserves an article, but we'll leave that for another day I guess. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the newly created series fiction article. I think this information should be somewhere, so I would not have voted delete at the last AfD, but I think it fits well here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:31, 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) 11:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. A heptalogy is not just a series of seven fiction books: a quick look on Google Scholar shows that it also refers to dialogues by Plato [27] and operas by Stockhausen [28] (which he planned for performance on each evening of a week, so the seven-ness was definitely significant). So redirecting to an article about series fiction would be inappropriate. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument presents a reason not to redirect, but no reason to keep. We could disambiguate or delete it instead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for keeping is the same as Elemimele's. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is faulty as they have not shown that WP:SIGCOV exists for this topic. WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is a very weak argument. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources given merely use the word in reference to a single occurrence each, with no particular attempt to consider them as a group, nor to discuss the specific concept of "heptalogy" in any detail, so they do nothing to establish any kind of notability. Nor does your vague wave of "improve" give any indication how this could be improved. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the phrase "vague wave of improve", I like it. I am not required to say how an article could be improved (though I do often either improve articles at AfD, or suggest content to do so (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butt of malmsey). However, this topic is not a priority for my editing time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selectively merge to Series fiction. Contra several colleagues above, the sources I looked at contain content about thematic arcs over the course of a seven-book series, but as far as I can see do not contain much that is inherently tied to series of seven books, rather than ones of six or eight. Furthermore, the sources I found are heavily focused on Narnia or Harry Potter, by far the best known heptalogies, and constructing an article based on the phenomenon in those two seems untenable to me. Also, in my view Elemimele is quite incorrect above - it is impossible to prove that a subject isn't notable, only that specific sources are insufficient, and when specifics haven't been put forward the nominator is being asked to prove a negative. With respect to balance, I would agree that trilogy is probably too hefty to merge into series fiction, but merging this article causes no balance issues at all; there's hardly any content there to begin with. Indeed the second table can likely be dumped per WP:CRYSTAL. As far as ASOAIF is concerned I will believe it is a heptalogy if and only if seven books have been published and GRRM has signed an affidavit in blood that he will write no more. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not asking for proof that something isn't notable. My objection was to Piotrus' comment "Without reading, we cannot be sure the sources exist or discuss the topic in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV (i.e. are not mentions in passing)". I actually agree, but the other way round: At risk of putting words in his mouth, I felt this was tantamount to saying "Yes, I am aware that a source exists, but I haven't read it, and therefore I am justified in assuming it is trivial/passing". I take the complementary view: if a source definitely exists, we cannot discount that it might be in-depth/relevant without someone taking the trouble to read it. But my "keep" opinion on this isn't something I'm going to lose much sleep over. Elemimele (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele Per WP:BURDEN of proof is on those who want to create or keep the article. As I noted above, we cannot assume that WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES. If you want this kept, you need to identify sources that contain WP:SIGCOV and present them here. I am very amenable to changing my mind, voting keep and withdrawing my nomination, if I can be shown that good sources exist. But, "at risk of putting words in someone mouth", I am not amenable to being told "I googled a few sources in which this term appears, maybe they have SIGCOV, maybe not, I did not care to read them, but since it is possible there is some useful content here, let's keep this". This is simply against our cited policies, as well as bad practice; if we accepted such argument, nothing that is google'able would be deletable (not to mention that not everything is google'able, so we can even extend it and argue that because there may be sources not digitized or in foreign languages and non-latin scripts, everything could be notable and kept). Fortunately, the BURDEN is simple: show us SIGCOV sources, or this topic is assumed to be not notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might add to this that we have had editors here at AfD that have made a habit of pointing to sources as a reason for keeping articles without having read those sources, even when those sources have been easily accessible for them to check, and in some cases even lying about having read them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those sources have not-uncommonly been found to not be fit for purpose (sometimes not even about the topic in question). We have to read the sources to evaluate them. TompaDompa (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barilius pectoralis

AfDs for this article:

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

This species does not exist, the name was published in a predatory journal and does not fulfil Article 8.5 of the amendment of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article says that it doesn't exist, and this one says that only predatory journals have recognized it. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speed (energy drink)

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT means I cannot return it unilaterally to draft. Moved to mainspace immediately after being declined at AC by BuySomeApples, and was previously sent to draft by CSMention269. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Bangladesh. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mahichowdhury20 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reversed it back to draft because the sock was unable to publish enough sources require for GNG and possibly COI. At that time, I got the warning that it was previously in draft before sending to mainspace. Before someone gave me a tip about DRAFTOBJECT, I sent it back to draft again, hoping that there might be possible sources enough to publish. I should have brought to AfD before. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 03:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 03:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amioun

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

Interesting one. I am removing a CSD tag that states, in essence, that the article is a hoax. The problem is that there are sources, albeit weak ones that appear to be motivated by a particular interpretation of history because it supports their religious beliefs. If we decide to keep an article on this topic we would want coverage of the possibility that the subject battle never took place. I do believe that deletion is likely the better outcome which is why I am listing it here. Uninvited Company 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Uninvited Company 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Lebanon, and Greece. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weakness is definitely a consideration. The first source is the defunct WWW site of a catholic church in Pennsylvania. However, there's an 1899 source by François Nau (Opuscules maronites) that talks about "combat près d'Amioun" and in its turn sources the claim to the writings of Étienne Douaïhi d'Ehden, so this might need more scrutiny than just outright dismissal for being mostly sourced to a dead anonymously-written inexpert early 2000s WWW site, although there's still the possibility that al-Duwayhi invented this and Nau offers scant independent corroboration. Uncle G (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Australian Jewish doxxing incident

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

A WP:NEWS event already covered at Antisemitism in Australia#The aftermath of the 7 October attacks and WP:FORKED out of there for no good reason. Clashes between anti and pro-Israel activists, especially a few months after October 7, are routine/WP:ROTM and better covered on broader articles instead of forks. This fork is also giving this event undue weight.

Besides, just passing WP:GNG is not enough for articles about events to be notable, WP:NEVENTS applies here. An online privacy law was indeed passed in December 2024, but that law was already on the work way before this event prompted some pro-Israel activists to pressure the government (to be precise, it was a major 2023 report by the Australian Attorney General, which regarded online data breaches, that urged the Parliament to enact this new online privacy law [29]). Badbluebus (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Events, Politics, Internet, and Australia. Badbluebus (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree that this incident is better covered in Antisemitism in Australia rather than as a standalone article, which places it into a broader context. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article currently has 45 references, and even if some of them are weak, the others are far more than required to establish notability. The incident had ongoing impact because it influenced Australian legislation that passed and became law. The fact that the legislation was already under consideration is not relevant as at least five reliable sources report that the doxxing incident helped the legislation go through. Also, at least one person was arrested in the aftermath of this doxxing. The Guardian in the UK reported that the New York Times in the US said It has been brought to our attention that a New York Times reporter inappropriately shared information with the subject of a story to assist the individual in a private matter, a clear violation of our ethics. This was done without the knowledge or approval of the Times. We have reviewed the matter and taken appropriate action. In other words, this led to a worldwide journalistic controversy. The topic is clearly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 07:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsetrain

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

Promotional page for a non-notable private company. Sources are limited to:

WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and/or affiliated sources: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].
WP:TRADES publication coverage that is generally not considered independent: [39], [40] (appears to be based on a press release from the company), [41].
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47].
Sources that do not mention the company at all: [48], [49], [50] (this one is talking about a different concept of a "pulse train"), [51].

I didn't find any qualifying WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS that would meet WP:NCORP, searching for both "Pulsetrain" and "Bavertis," either in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search. It's worth noting this subject does not appear on de-wiki, which suggests this may be an attempt at WP:ADMASQ on en-wiki. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Germany. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Simulator

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

An unnecessary spinout from List of Roblox games on a series of Roblox games that, on it's own, fails WP:GNG] and WP:NVIDEOGAME. There is effectively no critical commentary here outside of listicles, and there are also several unsourced statements. As someone who has practically been researching and writing for the "List of Roblox games" article practically since I joined the site (about two years now), I've ran source searches (aka WP:BEFORE) on this (and tons of other games) more times than I can count. In fact, I was actually the person to add the Pet Simulator X section to the article in this revision, and I remember having to dig deep to find okay sourcing that wasn't just the usual game guide slop. Which was hard because the former barely even existed. There was barely even enough for the section that's in the list article right now, and this article literally just recycles the exact same sources without bringing anything new to the table to justify a spinout.

And doing one more source search just to be safe before this nomination still turns up nothing. The status of this game has not changed, it's all game guide content or codes, save for the new McDonald's collaboration (which I don't see any clause about that contributing to notability). There is no substantial critical commentary from reliable sources listed at WP:VG/S, and there's no WP:SNG or something special like that which could possibly save the article. So I can safely say that, not only is this game not notable (let alone the whole series, even if the game was notable it wouldn't automatically make the whole series notable), but every single Roblox game, save for some special example like Dress to Impress and Adopt Me!, is probably not notable by Wikipedia standards, as of right now at least. I suggest that this article be deleted and redirected back to List of Roblox games (the latter of which I tried to do here, but got reverted) as there's practically nothing here to preserve. λ NegativeMP1 17:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. λ NegativeMP1 17:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Disagree if those have articles the Pet Simulator games should have one since the pet simulator games have 200k Concurrent players which is triple the amount of those.

Which means pet simulator is more popular. Thewetroadinsummer (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See our notability guidelines. Player counts mean absolutely nothing, what matters is whether or not reliable, secondary sources cover in the game in detail. Adopt Me and Dress to Impress have been discussed in detail with critical commentary. Pet Simulator has not. And since the material is a spinout from an article that already summarized the information, there's other factors at play like WP:NOPAGE and WP:MERGEREASON. λ NegativeMP1 17:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Roblox games per nom. Popular ≠ notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Roblox games per nomination reasoning jolielover♥talk 18:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Roblox games. There is no reason to delete this but I agree that it would take a lot for a Roblox game to deserve its own article. Archrogue (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacosmiliformes

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

Why the page should be deleted

The taxon is not published yet and the reference is still under review process. Formally Thylacosmiliformes does not exist yet.Lmalena Lmalena (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Copying from the article's talk page, a comment by the creator of the article:
I'm going to copy over what I said to you on my talk page—it is standard practice to create pages for new taxa within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, even when the publication is in the "in-press" stage (not to be confused with preprint). The paper is peer-reviewed and has been accepted for publication. It will not undergo any changes in its finalization that will affect the scientific content. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy call to SlvrHwk. Storye book (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my aforementioned comments. This persistent complaint is starting to verge on absurdity; the taxon is published and the description paper has been peer-reviewed. Lmalena, I'm not sure why you are so intent on having these pages deleted - can you provide a legitimate reason for deletion following Wikipedia's policies? If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to read Elsevier's description of what an in-press/pre-proof publication is, accessible at the top of the source in question. I will also add that, even if the page was deleted, it would inevitably have to be recreated once the properly-formatted PDF is made available later this year. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the other discussion: It is not the final version and can still undergo changes. Journals are publishing online the first accepted draft under review process as preproofs. These drafts are not the final versions and they can undergo drastic changes.

The full disclaimer of the Journal:

"What are journal pre-proofs?

Journal pre-proofs are Articles in Press that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of this publication. They have undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but are not yet definitive versions of record. These versions will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review, and may not yet have full ScienceDirect functionality. For example, supplementary files may still need to be added, links to references may not resolve yet, etc. The text could still change before final publication." Lmalena (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Repeating what I said in the other AFD: I understand your concern, but many prehistoric taxa articles in Wikipedia are named even when they're published first in in-press articles (e.g. Yuanyanglong and Archaeocursor for some of the most recent cases), and even if they don't get published officially the articles don't get deleted for that alone (e.g. Ubirajara jubatus); there are also a handful of articles for nomina nuda which are never officially described in journal (e.g. Hadongsuchus). And since you asked about many prehistoric taxa not having an article in spite of their validity, that's obviously because none of the current users attempted yet (and there's a vast amount of prehistoric taxa, so it would take time to make articles for every single one of them anyway). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sparassodonta Regardless as to whether the clade itself has been validly published or not, it's still too early to see whether this clade will be used by other researchers, and also the actual number of contained taxa other than Thylacosmilidae is very small, so I think it makes little sense as a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Hemiauchenia- clades above the generic level are not considered automatically notable and need to see widespread use and independent notabality before getting articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimartinia

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

Why the page should be deleted

The taxon is not published yet and the reference is still under review process. Formally Dimartinia does not exist yet.Lmalena (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have already addressed this twice with the deletion nominator. That previous comment is included below:
It is standard practice to create pages for new taxa within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, even when the publication is in the "in-press" stage (not to be confused with preprint). The paper is peer-reviewed and has been accepted for publication. It will not undergo any changes in its finalization that will affect the scientific content.
This persistent complaint is starting to verge on absurdity; the taxon is published and the description paper has been peer-reviewed. Lmalena, I'm not sure why you are so intent on having these pages deleted - can you provide a legitimate reason for deletion following Wikipedia's policies? If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to read Elsevier's description of what an in-press/pre-proof publication is, accessible at the top of the source in question. I will also add that, even if the page was deleted, it would inevitably have to be recreated once the properly-formatted PDF is made available later this year. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT published. That it is the problem. The article is a preproof which it is still going under the review process (the review process has not end yet, and the journal says so: "are not yet definitive versions of record"). It is not the final version. Both articles came to my knowledge through one of the authors of the scientific paper. The preproof is not even authorized (I know that is a problem with the journal and not with us). Even if it was authorized, the final version of the article is not published yet, the taxa would be published in the future, and they could change. We are making two articles for two taxa names than don't exist formally yet. Lmalena (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are millions of valid paleontological names without an article, including the sparassodonts Patene and Arctodictis. Why the need to create taxa articles from preproofs? Lmalena (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the final version and can still undergo changes. Since last year (at least to my knowledge, it could be previous years), journals are publishing online the first accepted draft under review process as preproofs. These drafts are not the final versions and they can undergo drastic changes. Lmalena (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand your concern, but many prehistoric taxa articles in Wikipedia are named even when they're published first in in-press articles (e.g. Yuanyanglong and Archaeocursor for some of the most recent cases), and even if they don't get published officially the articles don't get deleted for that alone (e.g. Ubirajara jubatus); there are also a handful of articles for nomina nuda which are never officially described in journal (e.g. Hadongsuchus). And since you asked about many prehistoric taxa not having an article in spite of their validity, that's obviously because none of the current users attempted yet (and there's a vast amount of prehistoric taxa, so it would take time to make articles for every single one of them anyway). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of a peer reviewed and published paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 6 February 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 delete‎. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurati State

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

I believe this is a hoax. The only search results for "Gaurati State" are a couple of Instagram accounts and there are no results for "Kingdom of Gaurati". All of the references fail verification: the two web sources are unreliable and don't seem to mention a Gaurati State; the links for "History of Rajput Clans", "History of Medieval India", and "The Battles of Samugarh and Dharmat" don't go to those books; p. 80 of "Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" is about religious beliefs, not a Gaurati State or its geography; "Fall of the Mughal Empire" is a 404. Three of the "Currency and Medals" images are obviously unrelated and I suspect the fourth of being AI generated. My hoax tag and PROD were removed by the article creator with a disingenuous edit summary, who also responded on their talk page with LLM generated text. Jfire (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and India. Jfire (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rajasthan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even bother researching. The article content on its face is a total hoax, from the rainbow flag through the Nazi memorabilia being passed off as 12th century coinage and the fake Google Books hyperlinks to the false sourcing of an 1829 book for events that happened in 1947. Uncle G (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nominator): Chaukhara and Baiswada State, created by the same user, need similar scrutiny. I tried to clean up the former but was reverted by the creator with an AI edit summary. Jfire (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G3, I agree. This is pretty bad. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Janice Harayda

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

Courtesy request from article subject via VTRS 2024122010000181. The basis of the request is that the subject is not very well known, the sources used in the article are mostly so old as to be inaccurate and/or misleading and the lack of recent sources reinforces that the subject has no lasting nobility. The quality of some of the sources lacks reliability even if the news sources themselves are generally reliable, the specific sources are not and are towards the gossip column end of journalism e.g. [52] Nthep (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I highly disagree with the subject, and reliable sources being old does not make it so that they don't work. There is no requirement for recent sources. Chicago Tribune and York Daily Record show notability alone. This was also a DYK in 2020. As for the pointed to source, I don't like sourced negative content being removed if it is still found to be true - especially removed by the subject. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has been any attempt to remove the pointed to source by the subject or anyone else. Nthep (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that the sources are "old" isn't a reason to delete. Moreover, as a widely published author and critic (e.g. books, plus pieces in Glamour, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Plain Dealter, Harper's Bazaar) who blogs on a "daily or near-daily basis" to over 9,000 followers (here), she doesn't appear to be an inherently private person. There are more than 3,000 hits for her in Newspapers.com, including WP:SIGCOV starting in 1970 and continuing well into the 1990s. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Goenka

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD discussion in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishan Goenka, which should be considered for this discussion. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is a RS, briefly mentioning him in relation to the company. 8 is about his housing, 11 is about a lunch conversation with him, 15 is him giving his opinions... Some coverage about the Welspun company. I don't see notability for this individual with the sourcing used, nor can I find much else. The rest of the sourcing aren't in RS or don't help notability. Still not seeing enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have made some improvements to the article. But I am unsure. Zuck28 (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not all sources are like that. Sources [53] and [54] are reliable secondary sources and provide significant coverage. Passes WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Taabii. Meets WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [5], the reliable source Forbes, is not "briefly mentioning him"; his name appears 30+ times in the article. [2], [3], [7], [19] are profiles that contain significant coverage about him published by reliable sources (Times of India or ET are quite usable here with the nonpromotional tone). More online and at newspapers.com, especially considering Goenka is a self-made billionaire. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank LaBuda

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

Local judge fails WP:NPOL, and the article reads like a series of controversies reported by a small-town newspaper. Novemberjazz 16:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Law, and New York. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 17:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:JUDGE as the topic is a national or state-wide judge. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 New Albany, Ohio shooting

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

Shootings like this unfortunately happen all the time (although I'm not saying that makes it non-notable); this article is WP:TOOSOON at best and fails WP:NEVENT at worst. E_F⁵ 15:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Ohio. E_F⁵ 15:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025. Doubtful this will receive WP:LASTING coverage. Novemberjazz 16:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2025. What's going on re gun violence is overwhelming. Have a look at the navbox on this one. And then the first item on today's Wikipedia In The News. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even worth redirecting, 1 death is hardly noteworthy for a shooting in America, just another day. Inexpiable (talk) 19:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimartinia

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

Why the page should be deleted

The taxon is not published yet and the reference is still under review process. Formally Dimartinia does not exist yet.Lmalena (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have already addressed this twice with the deletion nominator. That previous comment is included below:
It is standard practice to create pages for new taxa within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, even when the publication is in the "in-press" stage (not to be confused with preprint). The paper is peer-reviewed and has been accepted for publication. It will not undergo any changes in its finalization that will affect the scientific content.
This persistent complaint is starting to verge on absurdity; the taxon is published and the description paper has been peer-reviewed. Lmalena, I'm not sure why you are so intent on having these pages deleted - can you provide a legitimate reason for deletion following Wikipedia's policies? If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to read Elsevier's description of what an in-press/pre-proof publication is, accessible at the top of the source in question. I will also add that, even if the page was deleted, it would inevitably have to be recreated once the properly-formatted PDF is made available later this year. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT published. That it is the problem. The article is a preproof which it is still going under the review process (the review process has not end yet, and the journal says so: "are not yet definitive versions of record"). It is not the final version. Both articles came to my knowledge through one of the authors of the scientific paper. The preproof is not even authorized (I know that is a problem with the journal and not with us). Even if it was authorized, the final version of the article is not published yet, the taxa would be published in the future, and they could change. We are making two articles for two taxa names than don't exist formally yet. Lmalena (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are millions of valid paleontological names without an article, including the sparassodonts Patene and Arctodictis. Why the need to create taxa articles from preproofs? Lmalena (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the final version and can still undergo changes. Since last year (at least to my knowledge, it could be previous years), journals are publishing online the first accepted draft under review process as preproofs. These drafts are not the final versions and they can undergo drastic changes. Lmalena (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand your concern, but many prehistoric taxa articles in Wikipedia are named even when they're published first in in-press articles (e.g. Yuanyanglong and Archaeocursor for some of the most recent cases), and even if they don't get published officially the articles don't get deleted for that alone (e.g. Ubirajara jubatus); there are also a handful of articles for nomina nuda which are never officially described in journal (e.g. Hadongsuchus). And since you asked about many prehistoric taxa not having an article in spite of their validity, that's obviously because none of the current users attempted yet (and there's a vast amount of prehistoric taxa, so it would take time to make articles for every single one of them anyway). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject of a peer reviewed and published paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thylacosmiliformes

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

Why the page should be deleted

The taxon is not published yet and the reference is still under review process. Formally Thylacosmiliformes does not exist yet.Lmalena Lmalena (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Copying from the article's talk page, a comment by the creator of the article:
I'm going to copy over what I said to you on my talk page—it is standard practice to create pages for new taxa within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, even when the publication is in the "in-press" stage (not to be confused with preprint). The paper is peer-reviewed and has been accepted for publication. It will not undergo any changes in its finalization that will affect the scientific content. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy call to SlvrHwk. Storye book (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my aforementioned comments. This persistent complaint is starting to verge on absurdity; the taxon is published and the description paper has been peer-reviewed. Lmalena, I'm not sure why you are so intent on having these pages deleted - can you provide a legitimate reason for deletion following Wikipedia's policies? If you haven't yet, I would encourage you to read Elsevier's description of what an in-press/pre-proof publication is, accessible at the top of the source in question. I will also add that, even if the page was deleted, it would inevitably have to be recreated once the properly-formatted PDF is made available later this year. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the other discussion: It is not the final version and can still undergo changes. Journals are publishing online the first accepted draft under review process as preproofs. These drafts are not the final versions and they can undergo drastic changes.

The full disclaimer of the Journal:

"What are journal pre-proofs?

Journal pre-proofs are Articles in Press that have been peer reviewed and accepted for publication by the Editorial Board of this publication. They have undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but are not yet definitive versions of record. These versions will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review, and may not yet have full ScienceDirect functionality. For example, supplementary files may still need to be added, links to references may not resolve yet, etc. The text could still change before final publication." Lmalena (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Repeating what I said in the other AFD: I understand your concern, but many prehistoric taxa articles in Wikipedia are named even when they're published first in in-press articles (e.g. Yuanyanglong and Archaeocursor for some of the most recent cases), and even if they don't get published officially the articles don't get deleted for that alone (e.g. Ubirajara jubatus); there are also a handful of articles for nomina nuda which are never officially described in journal (e.g. Hadongsuchus). And since you asked about many prehistoric taxa not having an article in spite of their validity, that's obviously because none of the current users attempted yet (and there's a vast amount of prehistoric taxa, so it would take time to make articles for every single one of them anyway). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sparassodonta Regardless as to whether the clade itself has been validly published or not, it's still too early to see whether this clade will be used by other researchers, and also the actual number of contained taxa other than Thylacosmilidae is very small, so I think it makes little sense as a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Hemiauchenia- clades above the generic level are not considered automatically notable and need to see widespread use and independent notabality before getting articles. SilverTiger12 (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Nice (1892)

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

Only source is a dead link, never archived. I can't find any mentions of an 1892 secret treaty between France and Italy anywhere else on the web, only Wikipedia mirrors. I can't confidently say it must not be a real thing. The idea of a secret treaty existing is not outside the realms of possibility - Italy was an unenthusasitc member of the Triple Alliance - but the closest I can find to any mention of it on the web is commercial agreements and general reapproachment in this thesis.^[1] If there are any French or Italian speakers who can validate whether this article is real or not, please do. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Law, France, and Italy. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rhodes, Nancy Anne Nickerson (1972). "Franco-Italian relations from the Triple Alliance of 1882 to the Franco-Italian commercial agreement of 1898". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

I have temporarily restored the old history to draw everyone's attention to Special:Diff/137478661. We have had an article sourced to a game, played amongst a post-graduate and xyr friends, for 17 years. The post-graduate left the university in 2005, well before this article was first written, in fact. Uncle G (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 5 February 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 withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 15:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It Ends with Us controversy

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

Blatant POV fork. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 14:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Film. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 14:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything I would argue that this is the opposite of a POV fork, as it's trying to bring information together, not separate it. I noticed on both Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively's page, people were saying the controversy sections were getting too long and specific for those individual pages. Hence, why I started this one about the controversy itself.

This controversy is very well-covered in the media. I would find it hard to argue that it's not notable. And it continues on - I believe there was just a hearing abut a potential gag order that as far as I can tell has not been added to the article, in addition to a court date set for 2026. So, this article will probably just continue to grow as more details emerge and more court proceedings happen.

It doesn't make sense to cover it in this level of depth on either Lively or Baldoni's page. It also, to me at least, doesn't make sense to cover on the movie's page because this has become so more than the movie itself and involves other elements outside of the movie (like the article in The New York Times, or the alleged "Nicepool" depiction, etc.) Additionally, if this were to move to the movie page, it feels like it would take up so much of it that it would overshadow the actual details of the actual movie (e.g. production, plot, marketing, etc.)

Given the immense amounts of sustained coverage, I find it hard to believe it wouldn't be worth covering, but I don't know where else would make more sense than in a standalone article. Do you have specific ideas for where else you think this information would belong if not in a standalone article?

Additionally, if you think the article tone doesn't use a neutral enough POV, of course everyone is more than welcome (and invited!) to edit the article and refine language and tone. Wikipedian339 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian339, makes sense. I'm generally wary of "Controversy" and "Criticism" sections and articles as they tend to be blatant NPOV violations. I'll withdraw this nomination. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 15:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons Wikipedian339 stated above. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arthur D. Yaghjian

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:GNG. The article subject believes he is a nonnotable person who should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025012410006294. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage appears limited to scientific publications. We should honor the wishes of the subject in this case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Shakespeare's plays

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

I don't see how this is a noteworthy topic. In the cases where there is no historical basis for a locale, Shakespeare simply set his plays (I believe) in whatever place his source located them; where they are located is a trivial matter. TheLongTone (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. Wikishovel (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning delete~~ As it stands, this comes off as WP:OR in that the idea for instance about the locations of the tragedies seems to be that of the author. OTOH I would not be surprised at scholarly analysis of this subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of Shakespearean settings per discussion below. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep Seems to me to be something that could be reliably sourced, and upon which there is surely quite a lot of commentary. Locations are often significant. I have a lot of issues with the page as it currently is, which I'll happily have a go at listing if this discussion looks like closing as a keep. AndyJones (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scholarly sources include [55][56][57][58]. Reywas92^Talk 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not find these 'scholarly' sources convincing. Place does not matter in the plays; they are simply set where Shakespear's source located them. Geography in Shakespear is shonky in the extreme, as in the Aleppo-bound Master of the Tyger. Aleppo is not a coastal city. Ther locations are simply far- away place of which we know nothing. Incidentally I worked for a long time in the theatre industry and was closely associated with the design of a number of Shakespeare plays, some for the RSC. I do not recall any of the designers with whom I worked being remotely interested in researching the locations in which the plays are set. TheLongTone (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find it encyclopaedic. Whole article is based on a trivia. Azuredivay (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is very new and extremely undercooked, but the subject is certainly notable (pace Azuredivay, notability depends on what scholars and others have written, not on the text of the Wikipedia article) with plenty of scholarly sources available. Rewriting is certainly needed, with more and better sources, but that's an editing matter, not for AfD. Bohemia is in the Czech Republic not Austria (wherever it may have been politically in the 17th century); Florence isn't in France; Pericles is wrongly linked; and the equation of Cymbeline/Cunobeline's Ancient Britain with "England" is pretty dubious to say the least (England didn't come into being until at least 500 years later). The map is pretty but the data on it are unsourced and seemingly as wobbly as the tables of data. So as I said, the sources definitely need improvement. The Settings of Shakespeare's Plays by Josip Torbarina would be a place to start (at least it distinguishes England and Britain). I think it would be best to focus on towns or cities (a column in the tables) with "Country" more of a gloss, as countries have changed many times. Even the parts of London would be well worth distinguishing: Torbarina lists the Tower [of London], Bridewell Palace, Eastcheap, Southwark, Blackfriars, Smithfield, Cannon Street, Blackheath, Dartford "etc.". He has similar lists of towns in the English counties, and quite a few cities in France too. The article's problem is its lack of detail and lack of attention to the published scholarly sources, which are a great deal more informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: This article has a few glaring errors, as pointed out by Chiswick Chap. On the other hand, I think it would benefit greatly from the addition of content using the scholarly sources identified by Reywas92. Once it's cleaned up and polished, it will be a great addition to Wikipedia.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thank you all for your feedback, I have updated it since, with more sources, a more detailed and expanded table, an analysis section and fixed various issues. Any more feedback is welcomed, I believe that the content of this article is very interesting and has a place on Wikipedia, the map has also been updated for readability and sourcing.--Jadek8 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Shakespearean settings. We have this topic covered on a location-by-location basis, albeit incompletely, already; this new article Locations of Shakespeare's plays covers the topic on a play-by-play basis. It would be best to include all of this information in the same article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, and I'd suggest just redirecting the settings list to this locations list. That page is rather poor, being mainly bullet-pointed names with no context of which plays were at which place. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oppose Merge~~ (unless this closes "delete" in which case I'd support a redirect). ~~In my view the list article serves a different purpose from this one - and it's formatted as a list which this isn't, and it would lose that if the material from this page were merged into it.~~ AndyJones (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commen by nominator The merge suggestion seems sensible to me. Incidentally I am baffled by an academic article on 'The sense of place in Shakespeare's plays', since I do not think that the man ever visited Fife, let alone Illyria or Venice.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many authors have not visited the places where they set their writing - how they develop and portray a sense of place is an interesting topic of study. (One could say that authors who have been to their locations don't always have a good sense of place in their writing, too.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Shakespearean settings, keeping these two very closely related topics together would be useful. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Draftify (per DesiMoore) and also removing my opposition to a merge. I see so many problems with this page that I seriously doubt its ability to become an acceptable article - but have no objection to giving it that chance, if people are willing to work on it. AndyJones (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Page (blues musician)

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

Contains only primary sources. Cannot find any online RS. Fails WP:MUSICBIO, GNG and even local.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Music. Maineartists (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, [59], [60], and [61] all make mention of Page, but most are in passing so I lean on the side of WP:SIGCOV not being met. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state) and Maine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DWNC-TV

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

Generally unnotable local station. This article only has 17 words of readable prose, and the entire article is completely unsourced. A WP:BEFORE shows no WP:SIGCOV of the station (I can only find Fandom wiki entries for the station).

I recommend redirecting this article to List of Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation channels and stations per WP:ATD-R. The current prose is not mergeable since it merely states that the station is owned by IBC and is inactive. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Philippines. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 FC Liefering season

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

same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Kapfenberger SV season (2nd nomination). part of a previous bundled AfD that didnt reach a consensus. also fails to demonstrate notability, hasnt been updated since before the start of the season and has no real content. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Austria. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Floridsdorfer AC season

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

same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022–23 Kapfenberger SV season (2nd nomination). part of a previous bundled AfD that didnt reach a consensus. also fails to demonstrate notability, hasnt been updated since before the start of the season and has no real content. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Austria. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Knopf

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

Bar the dartsn.de page, SIGCOV is lacking here and so fails WP:GNG. Canary757 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Canary757 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nervous Fellas

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

Article created more than a decade ago, when inclusion criteria were almost non-existent, by a couple of kamikaze accounts. Searching for significant, third-party sources that could support the subject's notability turns up a desert portrait. To wit: Self-generated content, on Facebook, such as this or this, and as websites, e.g. this, multiple times; a few dead links, e.g. here or here; and so on. Only one legitimate hit, albeit obscure and small, was this 1990 review of one of their LPs. An admirable attempt perhaps, that lived a rather long life too, to make the act better known but Wikipedia is not a directory of musical acts nor a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: I had written User:Uncle G/On notability the year before this article was created, and even that was preceded by a whole debate on how inclusion criteria should work. The thing that we didn't have in 2007 that we have now is the much stronger AFC and Draft processes (although AFC existed from 2005) and the push back no-indication-of-notability tools at New Pages patrol for people, musical groups, and companies. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JeriQ

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jeriq

Articles for deletion/JeriQ

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

Fails all ramifications of WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICIAN. The nominations are not exclusive and so do not inherently confer both guidelines I just mentioned.

Citation 1 from marginally reliable Vanguard with no substantial coverage.

Citation 2 from the same marginally reliable source is utterly unreliable as it lacks a byline and does not provide any useful information.

Citation 3 lacks a byline and is only 104 words, no substantial coverage.

Citation 4 does not only lack a byline, it is definitely a sponsored piece.

Citations 5, 6, and 14 are the usual nomination lists.

Citations 7 and 8 has nothing to offer to this subject's passing of WP:GNG.

Citations 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide no substantial coverage about this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that this article fails all ramifications of WP:NMUSICIAN, as subject has:
1. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". | "the highest new entry this week on Top Albums at #4. BILLION DOLLAR DREAM by Jeriq is the biggest winner, moving up by 57 slots to #21."[62][63]
The Subject's notoriety can be supported by [64], from a notable magazine with a byline, and is named in some Wikipedia articles including Igbo music where he is referenced as one of the "Notable Igbo musicians."
2. "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". The Headies being a major music award in Nigeria and Africa has nominated the subject twice, as the links to the nominations has tried to prove. These nominations are seen in The Headies 2023 and the award's website [65] Chukwukadibia1 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Chukwukadibia1 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find I cannot agree with this nomination; subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Further to the verified notable award nominations (it is not clear from the nom why they do not count), and the several above citations (which include a secondary analysis in a reliable source the subject "has been making waves in the Nigerian music scene with his hit singles and collaborations" [66]), there is further coverage including Billboard charting, Billboard critical coverage, concert review in an WP:RSNG source, and the subject had a cover feature on the WP:RSNG TurnTableCharts magazine with a sigcov bylined intro. ResonantDis_tortion 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- some of the above sourcing has been added to the article now, including the charting citation, and also a critics end of year "best of" list for Rolling Stone magazine. Some copyediting and tidying up done too. ResonantDis_tortion 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was nominated in November 2024: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeriq. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. During this AfD the article has been moved from JeriQ to Jeriq. ResonantDis_tortion 19:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants of the November 2024 discussion to see if anything has changed... @Versace1608, @Bearian, @Ibjaja055. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job, ResonantDistortion, but sorry, it doesn't add a pinch of salt of WP:GNG for the subject. Firstly, for the charting, NMUSICIAN says that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (emphasis mine). Not only is the Billboard chart entry being not a single, ("Oganigwe" by Zlatan featuring Odumodublvck and Jeriq), Billboard is not Nigerian's national music chart. Plus, if the song charted No. 47 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs, it didn't really chart to confer notability on who was featured, nope, it didn't. This Afrobeats Fresh Picks also has the same issue, provides nothing to establish the mentioned notability on Jeriq.

I also cannot comprehend why you do not find the way this article was created deceptively concerning, This, then how it was moved to the supposedly correct title.

Again, "Nyem Ego" is another feature. Below is my analysis of the sources you added so far. This, coupled with my above analysis makes it evident that Jeriq is not yet a notable musician.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/weekend-beats/jeriqhood-concert-rapper-sells-out-nnamdi-azikwe-stadium-enugu/	~ The ridiculously promotional nature of this piece is a clear sign	~ Ditto	Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject.	✘ No
https://punchng.com/jeriq-highlights-rags-to-riches-story-at-concert-jeriq/	Reflecting on the concert’s significance, JeriQ told Saturday Beats,..., clearly not.	~ Ditto	Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject.	✘ No
https://www.turntablecharts.com/magazine/Industry_Digest_July_August_2023/82	An interview...	...while not entirely prohibited, cannot be the base on a subject's notability.	Ditto	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That it's not a Nigerian chart is not relevant, and neither is the fact it's a collaboration. Jeriq, evidently a major contributor to the piece of music, still has featured in the top 50 of a reliable chart aggregator, contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#2. He has been nominated, as a solo artist, twice for a notable national award which is WP:VERIFIED, and contributes to WP:MUSICBIO#8. At least two collaborative works with different artists have achieved non-trivial critical "best of" selections in independent sources, contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#1. The article in TurnTableCharts magazine (a website listed as a WP-reliable Nigerian source) is not only a curated interview but includes notability-supporting journalistic bylined non-trivial biographical information contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#1 (per WP:INTERVIEW). The nature of the page creation is irrelevant to the notability of the subject; for the record I have updated the article to try and improve it. Overall, the evidence points to the subject meeting the relevant notability guideline, and therefore I maintain my position to keep. ResonantDis_tortion 16:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The subject's debut album, Billion Dollar Dream, was critically reviewed by Afrocritik and The Native. He has received two nominations at The Headies. As previously pointed out, he charted on a Billboard chart as a guest act. These three reasons should be good enough for a weak keep. When I previously nominated the article, I didn't see reviews of his debut album in reliable sources. I also didn't see his nominations at The Headies. Perhaps I could have done a more in-depth search but preliminary search results didn't show reliable coverage at the time. The article contains a few promotional wording and definitely needs to be cleaned up. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you to Versace1608 for identifying further sigcov sourcing - album reviews [67] and [68]. I have added these citations to the article. ResonantDis_tortion 09:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per ResonantDistortion, Jeriq has received two nominations for The Headies, which is like the biggest award event in nigeria satisfying WP:MUSICBIO#8. Additionally, the coverage presented by ResonantDistortion is sufficient to meet WP:GNG.Afro 📢Talk! 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy Tab A 10.1

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

Same as previous 2, sorry if this isn't proper ettiquete for multi-page XfD-ing. Madeline1805 (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy keep' Again, why do you want them gone? Rvery "List of"-Wikipedia article has a lot of links to... other articles. J. Geerink (talk) 20:09, 29 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!} 09:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, it's notable. LarryL33k (Contribz) 16:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Notable topic. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fixed the AFD nominations so they point to the correct discussions. For a bundled AFD, following WP:MULTIAFD, only one deletion discussion should be created. Twinkle can't really be used to nominate the bundled articles because it automatically creates a discussion for every article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Chauhan

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

The actress does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources and has not appeared in any notable films, hence fails WP:NACTOR. Taabii (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Taabii (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 29 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!} 09:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I think this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. From the cast lists and articles, she does play major roles in two films, but one at least (perhaps both?) has not been released yet - it's due for release this year. I suggest moving it into draft space until both films have been released and there is coverage of them. Then she may meet WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. Roy Frieden

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

Credulous article about fringe physicist, that cites a huge number of his works. The only independent source is a review of his book, which concludes that it is "fundamentally flawed in both its overall concept and mathematical detail. It cannot be read as a textbook providing a valid approach to physics." That is simply not enough to establish notability. Tercer (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tercer (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, not enough sources to attest notability, also WP:BLP indicates that we should be stricter here.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and stubify. Frieden is an emeritus professor which satisfies WP:NPROF#C5. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being emeritus is certainly not enough to satisfy C5. Tercer (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you consider a distinguished professor appointment? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Distinguished professor is a specific title, which Frieden doesn't have. It has nothing to be with being emeritus. Tercer (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Emeritus is a $0 faculty appointment. This provides access to electronic resources and maybe a few other perks. It has to be approved by the admin, but is not (and should not) be considered as "distinguished". Ldm1954 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above comments to the effect that an "emeritus" title is not enough for WP:PROF#C5. It's another way of saying "old", not another way of saying "distinguished". XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Silver-haired" please, not "old". Ldm1954 (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, thank you all for the clarification but David said something below which I actually agree with. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Arizona, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly in need of improvement, especially the excessive publication list and the lack of external sources. I think the labeling as "fringe scientist" may not be fair to the career as a whole: from what I see he made respectable mainstream contributions in optical physics over decades and also the investigations into the the role of information in physics is not "fringe" (cf. Wheeler, It from bit). He has over 160 peer-reviewed publications according to Clarivate (two of them with more than 500 citations) with an h index of 30 (citation report). Among him non-peer reviewed publications are three books: doi:10.1007/978-3-642-56699-8 (which saw 3 editions and was called "a true classic" by a reviewer), doi:10.1017/CBO9780511622670, the one criticized in the article, which has also around 500 citation on Scholar. I tried to find a review of his latest book Science from Fisher information doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616907 and, while coming up empty, I noticed that it was fairly frequently cited also in what I consider reputable publications: Google Scholar shows over 600 citations.

I wanted to bring some data to this discussion; I'm undecided regarding deletion (having little experience with how WP:Notability_(academics) are applied here - in de.WP, he would very likely be considered "relevant", but I think the standards there are too lenient). --Qcomp (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The general idea of applying information theory in physics is not fringe. B. Roy Frieden's specific proposal for doing so has gone nowhere. By analogy, the idea that life might exist on other planets is scientifically mainstream, but particular manifestations of that idea — e.g., claiming to have found fossils in Moon rocks, or that COVID-19 came from a passing comet — can still be fringe.

Those "over 600 citations" include preprints, garbage journals, and passing mentions that only cite the book for the definition of Fisher information. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 600 citations in Scholar do not mean much (though, I guess, many "fringe scientists" would be happy to get that much attention). The number was not meant to say anything about the correctness of his work, but that it hasn't gone unnoticed. Most citations that I looked at either cite it for some basic definition related to Fisher info or for the general idea that information plays an important role in physics. The most substantial citations seem the ones by Steven Frank (biologist), who credits Frieden with motivating his use of Fisher information in evolution: doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01647.x (without endorsing his work in physics).
My objection to the term "fringe" has more to to with the decades preceding the work on information and physics. I've added two lines about his apparently pioneering work in optics (citing two review works which mention him as one of the pioneers in each of the two) and one in image restoration. I have no insight myself into how important these contributions were, but the first two have 150 citations each (which is not bad for an article from the 1960s, I think) and the third over 500 (by Clarivate, not Scholar) and all are mentioned decades later in review articles on the respective subject. --Qcomp (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and improve. If you go to his CV you will see that he is a Fellow of both OSA and SPIE (also AAAS but I discount that). That is enough for WP:NPROF#C3. I did not count in detail, but his work has enough citations that I believe he passes #C1 as well. Cut the bibliography to 10 papers, add the major awards and trim the less reliable information. It would be good to also add something about his earlier work which appears to be considered by the wider community as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Fellow of Optica and SPIE (and AAAS) should be enough for WP:PROF#C3, and he also appears to pass WP:PROF#C1. His historical role in the early history of laser beam shaping is well attested in the published literature. The book and its criticism are a sidelight that should be discussed but should not be the focus of this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the "Work on Fisher information in physics" section for being credulous, promotional, in violation of policy, and generally beneath the dignity of an encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pisit Pitukcheewanont

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

The article seems mostly to be puffery. It is true that Pitukcheewanont is an adjunct professor of paediatrics, but doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROF (no named chair, for example). The list of highlighted references shows exclusively mid-author list contributions, mostly in large studies, which usually means that their contribution is to provide access to patients or patient data. References are routine listings or not indepednent of the source. Klbrain (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 29 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!} 09:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premer Somadhi

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

Sources are unreliable, and the reviews added to the reception section are the same reviews published twice by both websites, failing NFILM. Additionally, I doubt their reliability. The source BMDB is entirely unreliable as it is a blog website. GrabUp - Talk 08:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: was remade a year later. Notable cast, notable writer. At the very very least a redirect (writer, list of Bangladeshi films of 1996, even, remake) should be considered and might have been discussed before initiating an Afd: because it certainly can be improved but I am extremely opposed to the deletion of this page. Anyway, this meets WP:NFIC: important in the career of a notable (film) person (Bapparaj), and that's enough to keep a page. -Mushy Yank. 11:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it because, recently, a video clip "Chacha, Bari Ghor Eto Shajano Keno? Ar Hena Kothay?" (translate:Uncle, why the house so decorated? and where's Hena?" And and the title song of this film "Premer Somadhi Venge" are widely viral on social media. The film also remade in India's Bengali language film industry Tollywood in 1997 as Bakul Priya. Recently, i edited in this article and removed the unreliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghna Jamila (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libera Folio

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

Per WP:Fancruft. The article only cites one source, which is in Esperanto. It does not seem like this online magazine has ever been covered by anyone outside of the Esperanto movement. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and News media. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Esperanto periodicals – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Esperanto periodicals per Svartner. – The Grid (talk) 13:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Esperanto periodicals, some Esperantists might search this, so a redirect is useful. But otherwise this topic is very very niche and is unlikely to see WP:SIGCOV outside some Esperanto-related sources. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tajhat Thana

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

Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:GNG. Previous similar AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajirhat Thana. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Bangladesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Thanas are the Bangladeshi equivalents of City districts, passes WP:NGEO. Za-ari-masen (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanas used to be sub-administrative districts before, according to Thanas of Bangladesh. Nowadays, Bangladesh has Upazilas and Union Parishads as sub-district administrative areas. The Rangpur district has its own upazilas and union parishads, none of which include the above Thanas. City Corporation wards are a separate type of administrative division. Except for Kotwali Thana which seems to have been created much before, the other Thanas are newer creations, much after the Thana system of sub-dividing administration was abolished. Hence, I don't think the rest of them pass WP:NGEO.

For Kotwali Thana (Rangpur) itself, ref2 which is cited for the establishment date is a dead link while ref1 and ref3 don't mention Kotwali at all. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanas and Upazilas refer to two different things now. Thana is used as the geographical unit for the regions under the jurisdiction of city corporations while Upazila is used for the rest of the country. Geographically, city corporations are located within the districts but administration-wise, they function independently, which is why you won't find the names of thanas in the list of upazilas and union parishads. You will find them in the census reports however. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Za-ari-masen has explained everything.

— Cerium4B —Talk? • 13:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, since this is a bundled nomination, I'd like to give this discussion a bit more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator The explanation above (along with the census ref), by Za-ari-masen, does make sense and this seems to be included in the Bangladesh census. That said, the police station area and the census area are different things that happen to be co-terminous right now. Police station areas could be merged or split with other ones, following which the police station area wouldn't be notable. The lead and the infobox should be changed to say that this is first-and-foremost a census area. Also, the ref to the census pdf should be added to all the pages in the bundle. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 mm

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

Might be an unnecessary disambiguation page if "Sigma 4.5mm" is not commonly referred to as 4.5mm DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree, unnecessary. Just use a hat note. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the disambiguation page is deleted, then the redirect pages should be deleted as well. "4.5mm" can refer to anything of that size. In photography, prime lenses are colloquially referred to by their focal lengths. For example "Use the 4.5mm." is an elision for "Use the 4.5mm lens." The same occurs in ballistics as well. For example "Use the 4.5mm." is an elision for "Use the 4.5mm caliber.". This is confusing and specific enough I think to warrant a disambiguation page since these are very different contexts (shooting a gun versus shooting with a camera lens). Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise merge with a new disambiguation page for "5mm" to refer to anything between 4.5 mm and 5.4 mm in size. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LIFE Industries (Record Label)

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

After a quick search, I do not think this label meets NCORP. The sources currently provided are primary, and a Google search hasn't been any more promising. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kiuoro, delete only if that article is deleted. Since this is a music topic, we should look to MUSIC rather than CORP, but this label doesn't meet the definition of an important indie, since its only potentially notable member appears to be its founder and it's had no substantial cultural impact. However, the page's information is sensible to merge into the founder article if it is kept. Chubbles (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. The Banner talk 17:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not taking action as the fate of Kiuoro is still on the fence.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly WP:PROMO. Svartner (talk) 06:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kiuoro

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

After a quick BEFORE, I do not think Kiuoro meets WP:MUSICBIO. At present, all sources in the article are primary, and I haven't been able to find any coverage in non-primary sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
his fan base is a more in person underground crowd. currently looking for more info Bobsanski (talk) 17:42, 29 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!} 06:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete lack of coverage as far as I can see, clicking on the red links on the page reveals that this seems to be part of a group of pages of which the rest have already been deleted. Author has publicly declared a WP:COI, and every reference is a primary source. LIFE Industries (Record Label), a page written by the same author, shares the same issues and is also nominated for AfD currently. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. The sources are not independent of the subject. Svartner (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Gupta Surendranath

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

Sources are unreliable and PR stuff, fails GNG and NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 06:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Advertising, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:NPRODUCER. The claims should be backed by the reliable sources. Taabii (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the page and added more reliable sources and learning to improve the page further more, ur help on this topic/page would be much appreciated. Heloise327 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heloise327:Please don’t add SPONSORED PR articles to the article and claim that you added more reliable sources to prove notability. The StoryBoard18 source (whose reliability is unclear) is a SPONSORED article, as its tags clearly mention “Advertising” and “Brand-Marketing.” Additionally, the Times of India article you added is an INTERVIEW, which does not count toward notability. Please refrain from adding promotional content using such sources, as you did in your last edit. GrabUp - Talk 18:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for pointing it out, I’ll try to avoid doing that, also will the deletion go away if the article is updated properly… 182.56.209.33 (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes can you please lift the deletion now 2405:201:A:80AA:CCFA:F72E:656F:182A (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes you suggested, can you please lift the deletion Heloise327 (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m continuously working on improving the quality of the page and adding reliable citations, just need a little time to get a hang of Wikipedia as I’m a newbie editor, would really appreciate ur guidance and help on this. Heloise327 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Heloise327 I'll try to help. Taabii (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 182.56.209.33 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taabii@GrabUp please help me improve Aarti Gupta Surendranath’s article Heloise327 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article after recent additions to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran Alam

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

Non-notable cricketer, played one first-class cricket match but no in-depth coverage exists. Found this mention. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Patrick

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

Created by single purpose editor, possible WP:AUTOBIO. Most of the provided sources are primary. I don't think the awards won add to notability. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Environment, Australia, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her website lists a lot of the classic claims of entrepreneurs who are not actually notable — a TedX talk, some non-notable awards, being interviewed in various places, having her book named as one of the top 5 for "social entrepreneurs" by a Forbes contributor, etc. In terms of actual secondary coverage, there are a few sources discussing her small business in around 2009–2010 [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75], but none go into a great deal of depth and none are really SIGCOV of her. I couldn't find independent reviews for any of her books and I definitely don't think the awards she's won are notable ones. I'm not seeing either a WP:GNG or a WP:NAUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 06:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nisar Ahmed (cricketer)

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

Date of birth is unknown, appeared in one List A cricket match. Lacks in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shabran railway station

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

Contains three references: two mapping sites and one 404 that the Wayback Machine shows to just be a list of train stations. Google search failed to turn up any more relevant sources. In addition, this article has a lot of text while failing to contain much substance, which leads me to suspect that it's AI slop. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Azerbaijan. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 05:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete seems to be a run-of-the-mill station about which there';s nothing to say except "it's a station on the X Line." If there were an article on the line possibly it could be redirected into a list of stations on the line, but I cannot tell that from the article. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey, Indiana

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

A station with passing siding on the ex-Monon line; the siding remains, but whatever station may have housed the post office is gone. Not a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The cited county history is indeed discussing stations on the Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railroad, currently redlinked in Monon Railroad. Baker says that it was a post office. Graydon M. Meints's Indiana Railroad Lines has Surrey as "MON-A" i.e. on the 1st subdivision of the Monon Line. Contemporary railway shipping guides (e.g. ABC Pathfinter Shipping and Mailing Guide) have "Surrey, Jasper, Ind". It was a railway station, alright. It should be listed between Fair Oaks and Rensselaer in Monon Railroad#Section #1, but currently is not. Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rail station, not a town. Rural stops like this were common in the days before autos, that doesn't make them a "community". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoutsburg, Indiana

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

Let's start with one big error: the current nature preserve did not replace the "town"; it's southeast of what is supposed to have been the town site, as is clear as soon as you look at GMaps. OTOH I can't find any evidence for this as anything but a rail station. The little that was on the road by the tracks disappeared when the subdivision went in south of it, and there was never anything on the north side. All the documentation I find relates to the station/post office, regardless of the spelling. Mangoe (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker says that George W. Stout founded a "village". Hamilton's and Darroch's A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana on p.74 gives the other spelling, Stoutsberg, as station on the Three I's Railroad (the erstwhile Indiana, Illinois & Iowa Railroad Company) between Wheatfield and DeMotte. Graydon M. Meints's Indiana Railroad Lines has Stoutsburg on the LS-WK (c.f. Forest City, Indiana (AfD discussion)) and that's the station name in the 1899 A.B.C. Pathfinder Shipping and Mailing Guide. It's still listed in Bullinger's 1962 Postal and Shippers Guide for the United States and Canada and Newfoundland. Only Baker says village, but I have sources for post-office and railway station going into the middle 20th century.
The preserve, per the 1995 Directory of Indiana's Dedicated Nature Preserves published by the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, is Stoutsberg Savanna.
Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Ridge, Jasper County, Indiana

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

So here we hit yet another conundrum in Jasper County, which seems to have more than its share, mostly due to Mr. Gifford of railroad fame. And this is plainly a point on a railroad (though not on his), as I find a tax assessment for the depot. The problem is that leaving out a soil series name use, everything is either using this to locate various properties/people, or records a series of industrial/agricultural facilities at the spot, of which there are three at present: a trailer manufacturer which occupies the westernmost and oldest spot, an ag co-op which may be the descendant of the oldest documented business, and a bio-energy plant which is a relative newcomer. The irregular lake to the north is the remains of the fourth business, a quarry which was apparently opened up around 1960. Both the co-op and the quarry have secondary documentation; interestingly, I also found this ad for a property sale, a tile factory which clearly wasn't here, but the agent of the seller apparently was. Or at least, he picked up his mail there. But once again, there's no sign anyone ever lived here. There was what looks from the air like a farmstead directly at the RR crossing in 1957, but it disappears after that; another disappears into the quarry property. Otherwise it's all farm fields surrounding the industry. Can anyone find something that actually describes the place? Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with Surrey, Indiana (AfD discussion) we're still on page 74 of the cited county history, and the same sources for Surrey station that I have cited in that AFD discussion have Pleasant Ridge station on Monon Railroad#Section #1, between Rensselaer and McCoysburg. Comtemporary Lippincott's from the 1880s and Bullinger's 1961 Postal and Shippers Guide for the United States and Canada and Newfoundland have this as a post office as well. The 1880 Lippincott's also adds "on the Indianapolis, Delphi & Chicago Railroad, 4 miles E. of Rensselaer". Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road signs in Antigua and Barbuda

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

I do not see that there's anything notable about the road signs, and neither a redirect to Antigua_and_Barbuda#Government_and_politics nor Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Signs_and_Signals#Road_signs seems helpful to the reader. A redlink might be better for article development should there be something worth developing. Star Mississippi 04:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, Caribbean, and Antigua and Barbuda. Star Mississippi 04:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This three-sentence article is completely unsourced, and one of its claims appears to be inaccurate. The article says, "Antigua and Barbuda is the only signatory to the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals among the countries of the Caribbean", but it does not appear on the United Nations list of signatories. In fact, Cuba, which is a Caribbean country, is on the UN list as having acceded to the convention, making the claim doubly inaccurate. (Regardless of any distinction between signature and accession, Antigua and Barbuda hasn't joined the Convention at all, and Cuba has.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean delete, doesn't appear to be sufficient sourcing. There is a Transport in Antigua and Barbuda article, though it is in horrible shape at the moment so a redirect probably wouldn't do much good. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Transport in Antigua and Barbuda per arguments above. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also fine with this as nom. Star Mississippi 01:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:GNG and the cited sources don't look reliable. This is a car rental company and blog and this site has no author info. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Val Valentino

AfDs for this article:

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

Merge with Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed the article in it's current state does not appear to be notable enough for a separate article. A majority of the article about Valentino's role as the Masked Magician on the TV show. This issue was raised at a recent RM. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Magic. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed. 162 etc. (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Brazil, California, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject was highly notable in Brazil at the end of the 90s/beginning of the 2000s, and to this day has had some repercussions in the mainstream media (especially on Rede Globo). [76], [77], [78], [79]. Svartner (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles talk about his health problems (which are not encyclopedically notable) and his 90s TV show (which already has an article.) 162 etc. (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other things about him, like this article from 1999 [80], or about the return of his show on pay TV channels. [81], [82]. Maybe he hasn't been as successful outside of Brazil, but there's definitely WP:SIGCOV here. Svartner (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about merging this article with Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed? Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do we really need the space? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:9430:B51E:9FD9:F2BF (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Serbia relations

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

This was a redirect that was reverted. I could not find coverage in third party sources covering these relations. They don't even have resident embassies. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Estonia, and Serbia. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is expanded in Serbian version so with a bit of expansion on English side, it will provide more information about relations between these countries. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 07:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the sources in the Serbian article are primary government sources. The other 2 are from a database. Still fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of airlines of Lebanon

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

The page is a list article with only one entry, specifically Middle East Airlines. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is only the case now because all other airlines have been moved to List of defunct airlines of Lebanon. Recon rabbit 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of a defined set of lists. Arguably this could be merged with the defunct airlines list, but I don't really see any reason to delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguably the best course of action would be to merge List of defunct airlines of Lebanon into this article. It doesn't make much sense to have a list article with one entry. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge List of defunct airlines of Lebanon into it. BilletsMauves^€500 12:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SportingFlyer. Gheus (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This closure can't be "Keep and Merge" it has to either be "Keep" OR be "Merge" and right now opinion is mixed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge List of defunct airlines of Lebanon into it per Esolo. With regard to Liz's comment above, a "keep and merge" as suggested here would actually be a "keep" for this article and a "merge" for a different article, List of defunct airlines of Lebanon, which is permitted. (We couldn't close an AfD by both keeping and merging the same article.) In order to support such a merger, I have formally opened a merger proposal at Talk:List of airlines of Lebanon and tagged both articles accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous reasonings, and this discussion can be taken to the merge proposal which has been opened. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge List of defunct airlines of Lebanon into it per Esolo5002. WP:NLIST states Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. As it stands now, the article, with its one entry, may fulfill the first criterion (recognized informational). A merge would, in my opinion, bolster its notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian atrocities

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

Why the page should be deleted

Creating the deletion discussion for Armenian Atrocities page. The page sources notorious Armenian genocide denials, such as Justin McCarthy and Guenter Lewy, cites Atatürk as a factual evidence, and uses almost exclusively Turkish scholars, all of which violates WP:RS. Moreover, through the article author also tries to push an agenda and engages in WP:SOAP and often writes his opinion WP:NOTOPINION. The article is also far from NPOV and violates WP:NPOV.

For example,in the background section of the article, he describes the life of Armenians under ottomans overtly positively, without a single negative example. The line "When Seljuk Turks conquered Anatolia in 11th century, they gave autonomy to Armenians, allowing them to live in a tolerant and just manner." looks like an opinion and "Armenians were ruled under the millet system. This provided them with cultural and political privileges." lacks context and sourcing. Which priveleges exactly?

Afterwards, in "Armenian National Movement" an article pushes an agenda that an "Armenian question" emerged during the Treaty of St Stephano, implying, that it wasn't a case before, without providing any sources on the claim. Afterwards, it also gives an opinion on why the Armenian question emerged, like "However, the real concern of the Russian government was not the wellbeing of the Armenians. Russian Empire, looked after its own interests through the Panslavism policy and wanted the strengthen its hegemony in the Near East.".

The section on Massacres uses almost exclusively primarily non-neutral sources. The introduction onto this section quotes Kamuran Gürün "Their plan was to provoke Muslims by organizing terrorist attacks and have them massacre Armenians. Thereupon, they expected the European powers to intervene and liberate Armenia.", which is an opinion from his book "The Armenian File", which is notable for its denial of Armenian genocide. To the right of it, he puts a quote of Anastas Mikoyan, a bolshevik, who directly opposed the creation of independent Armenia and was motivated by it, we can't rely on him.

On Kars and Ardahan he states the opinion of the MFA of Qajar Iran, which fought against Russia in WWI. On Van, he uses hostile language like "terrible" and "gangs", citing Justin McCarthy as a source, who is an Armenian genocide denier, and is not neutral, and on Erzurum he cities Şevket Süreyya Aydemir, who is described as "National Communist". On Marash, the author quotes Atatürk, who is also far from neutral on this matter

I think it is enough for now, but I would gladly comment on other flaws in it I've found, if this is not enough for the deletion. I think that the article Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction encompasses the topic covered in the article without a clear agenda or problems with neutrality, so I don't think there is a need for a specialized article regarding the crimes of Armenians. Athoremmes (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Athoremmes (talk) 03:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Zhiruo

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

Not sure this meets the notability guideline for fictional elements. The entire article is basically a plot summary. I am unsure of the reliability of the sole reference (preserved by archive here), but it looks more like a fansite than a book to be honest, even if it does claim to be published by a press. Obviously the vast majority of reference material on this topic is probably in Chinese. A quick look when searching the character's name in Chinese didn't bring up anything substantial (mostly press releases and blog posts). Looking on google books in Chinese didn't bring up anything substantial either, only the works themselves or plot summaries. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Martial arts, and China. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber. Redirect as if sources exist they are in Chinese, which I cannot search in, and I assume the nom did not (I did check the zh wiki article and it does not appear to have any reception/analysis and just like ours, is a plot summary + a list of media this character appers in). As such, the article as written fails WP:GNG, and WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is hardly a valid argument. All things considered, redirecting is the best outcome, unless someone can improve it now. After redirection, this can hibernate in the history until such a time someone is able to restore it, if sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did do a google book search in Chinese using Chinese characters [83] (I can't read Chinese either, though you can auto-translate the books titles and snippets using Chrome's page translation feature), and I did find some sources that were analyses of Jin Yong's novels that mentioned the character like [84] and [85], but the actual quotes that were shown as snippets looked like essentially plot summary to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[86] might count as sigcov, as the snippet quote shows a bit of analysis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Red Moon (Nazi club)

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

This club allegedly formed by "Arab youths" was mentioned in a brief 1935 dispatch by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. That dispatch was copied within a few days by two North American Jewish news outlets. Otherwise there are no sources. None of the other sources I removed yesterday mention the club at all. In the discussion before this article was deleted on the Hebrew wiki it was stated that a search of Arabic sources failed to find a mention. It is obvious that the lack of any continuing coverage means it fails WP:ORG by a mile. A group of youths can form a club, but if it never does anything that brings it to attention it isn't notable. Zero^talk 02:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Israel, and Palestine. Zero^talk 02:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, could honestly be PROD'd but I think it makes sense to run this here. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched in Arabia and found nothing to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Bakanowsky

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this D3 college football coach to meet WP:GNG. The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV is this piece about his college commitment in 2011 which fails WP:YOUNGATH. JTtheOG (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. JTtheOG (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My search of Newspapers.com failed to turn up SIGCOV. See search here. The best I found was about his high school career here and here. We'll need better to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After doing a search of my own I have to agree with the assessment of JTtheOG. Just simply being a college football coach doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT jolielover♥talk 03:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Eelipe (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't !vote twice. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleted my initial vote. Should have just edited it. Thank you. Eelipe (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NSPORT -Samoht27 (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Being a lower level (Division III & NAIA) head coach is not an WP:NSPORT or ANYBIO passing position. Just today, a DIII head coach resigned to coach a high school team instead. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance Alice M. Baxter College-Ready High School

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

Not notable, the entire page sounds like an advertisement, not to mention it seems to fail notability, even during it's tenure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 February 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 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and California. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Seems to fail WP:NORG and be WP:PROMO -Samoht27 (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Sheehan

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this D3 college football coach to meet WP:GNG. Four sentences of independent coverage here and two sentences here was the most I came up with. JTtheOG (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Arkansas, Illinois, Maine, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is not keep, then send it to draft space. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. JTtheOG (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failing WP:NSPORT. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip

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

Statements are statements and not an indication of any action, and thus notability, in the future. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRUMPCRUFT. This is simply too premature of a 'proposal'; Trump made a single claim in a single instance that does not, as it stands, amount to an entire article. Also, see WP:NOTNEWS. I would support creating something broader however on these statements along with past statements, perhaps Proposals for ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip. Eelipe (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting this per ECR! Apologies :) Eelipe (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRUMPCRUFT, also WP:CRYSTALBALL. I thought we agreed very recently that Wikipedia was not going to print every speculation Trump mentions. None of his ideas come to fruition without considerable support and real-time action from Congress. He tends to toss out every thought that goes through his head. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete yet more TrumpcruftGolikom (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRUMPCRUFT, If I had a dollar for every insane idea that comes out of Trump's mouth, I'd probably go on a vacation. Either way, He'll just forget about it in a week like he did with Greenland. Not notable.Emigdioofmiami (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wasn't this all speculation from a single tweet? E_F⁵ 02:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It is WP:TOOSOON to say whether anything will come out of this. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean Speedy Delete? because use of WP:TOOSOON appears inconsistent with a Speedy Keep vote. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For a deal rejected by both parties shortly after being announced, this is about as WP:RECENTISM and WP:TRUMPCRUFT as you can get. Cheers! Johnson524 02:46, 5 February 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 ☎ ✎ 03:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just had a near identical article deleted here, ultimately WP:TRUMPCRUFT and WP:RECENTISM, let's have this develop into something more like it happening or some legislation before creating a page for it. jolielover♥talk 03:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean draftify. Something could very well happen in the next 6 months and the article is not in bad shape even if nothing has made this comment notable yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON, without prejudice to its recreation on Trumpedia® with a suitable quote-farm. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TRUMPCRAFT, but not TOOSOON. Nothing will ever, ever, ever come of this latest idiotic plan untethered in any way with reality ... unless Trump gets Mexico to foot the ginormous bill. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Daily TRUMPCRUFT. NOTNEWS, RECENTISM and NOPAGE also apply. Against draftication. "We" really need to learn how to include statements by politicians in existing articles. gidonb (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Trump (and a lot of people in politics) just say shit sometimes. Until something comes of it, it means basically nothing. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per others. No sense in taking in a proposal that has no traction and reeks of WP:TOOSOON. Conyo14 (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrov

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater. Fails WP:NSKATE; no international senior-level medals, no national championships wins. On-line searches yield nothing beyond databases, scores, or a passing mention in articles detailing her previous skating partner, who went on to have more success than she did. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 February 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 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2mm Pinfire

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

Delete. So far, this article has one citation, and a quick citation search turned up very few/no sources. Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT as nothing was found regarding the subject that was significant. (Acer's Communication Receptacle | what did I do now) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 00:06, 5 February 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 February 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Firearms. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article has a single source, which doesn't exactly meet NPRODUCT's sustained coverage in reliable independent secondary sources requirement, and a specific model of ammunition cartridge with no extraordinary attributes doesn't have any reason to have an article. I would be open to merging into 2 mm caliber, but given its state I'm not going to propose that as my primary choice. --PixDeVl ~~yell~~ talk to me! 22:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Rhodes, Nancy Anne Nickerson (1972). "Franco-Italian relations from the Triple Alliance of 1882 to the Franco-Italian commercial agreement of 1898". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[1]