Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 17#Contus Tech

< January 16 January 18 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Horatio Parker. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Bailey

[edit]
Parker Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all notability (even GNG). No sourced references. Easily merged/linked with notable association page: Horatio Parker if deemed notable for mention. Maineartists (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Law, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge probably. I can find some sources in digitised newspapers: he won the Joseph H Stearns prize at Columbia University in 1928 for his Sonata in A Flat Major for flute and piano [1], [2]; he studied with Ernest Bloch, Pierre Douillet, Sigmund Stojowski and Roger Sessions [3] and source #1 here. His music was played by Professor Richard T Gore, university organist [4] and by Charles Naegele [5]. Bailey graduated from Yale in 1923 with majors in Greek and mathematics. He was a member of composers clubs in places where he lived. There are some other listings of recitals where he played his compositions. None of that really contributes to notability (although I note that the New York Times published an obituary of Charles Naegele, so he may be notable). There is already a sentence in Horatio Parker's article about Parker Bailey - it might be possible to add there that he won a prize in composition (with the refs). (The reference already in this article is fully digitised here [6], and only gives his place of birth and the name of his sonata.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Except for the Joseph H Stearns prize at Columbia (which I cannot find anything online about the prize itself and is no longer a prize at Columbia so not quite sure it meets notability for "Has won or been nominated for a major music award" for music notability), all the other claims are "notability by association". Agree a merge would suffice this nomination with minimal adage of subject to the existing line: "Parker was the uncle of Parker Bailey." Maineartists (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolò D'Agostino

[edit]
Nicolò D'Agostino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 European Cricket League

[edit]
2019 European Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2022 European Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don't need separate season articles for this minor cricket tournament, all of the reasons for merge and redirecting 2023 and 2024 seasons (2023 AFD and 2024 AFD) apply to the 2019 and 2022 seasons as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If these articles were Merged, what would the target article(s) be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to T3 (Tram İzmir). Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Baysak (Tram İzmir)

[edit]
Kemal Baysak (Tram İzmir) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Cremastra (u — c) 15:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, via WP:NTRAINSTATION this does not meet WP:GNG based on my WP:BEFORE check. Cremastra (u — c) 19:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting simply because we have two different Redirect suggestions and have to select one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone would like the article moved to draft to work on, please let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traveen Mathew

[edit]
Traveen Mathew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cricketer, who fails WP:GNG. Has only played in T10 cricket, not any FC, List A or T20 competition which can often help increase significant coverage. This article was moved to draftspace and then moved back despite minimal insufficient improvements, which is why this AFD is necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 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! 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: This is an encyclopedia and not a profile page where anybody can get to feature himself without any major achievements. The subject clearly fails GNG, yet the original editor is still trying to defend. Lookslikely, if you're paid to edit, kindly disclose conflict of interest. To the closing admin, this articles fails all criteria. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cameremote, your comment makes me wonder if you even examined this article. If you looked at the page history, you'd quickly see that that the article creator is Janeesh 22, not Lookslikely. Secondly, do not cast aspersions, like accusing an editor of working for pay while undisclosed, you better have evidence to support those accusations or you could be facing a block yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to above: I am not the original editor of this page. I just saw it on this list, Googled the guy and added some stuff to his page. I am not paid to edit on Wikipedia and couldn't give two hoots if it's deleted or not. Oh and before accusing people of things, at least have the courage to sign your username (Cameremote) chum. Lookslikely (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of boredom, I’m willing to save this page out of boredom if it has enough sources. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will start working on it tomorrow if this is okay with y’all because honestly, it’s getting late lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, clearly fails the notability criteria. And thanks for bringing to my attention the signing issue, I'm using mobile, and I assume it auto signs. Thanks for that. I say again, please disclose COI if you're directly or indirectly associated to the subject, because the way you're defending an article that fails GNG is alarming. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place
As I said, Cameremote, either provide proof of your allegations or stop making them. There is nothing inherently COI about defending an article from being deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to point out to the editor that the way he's defending the article is somehow. He should purely suggest that the article be moved back to draft, for further improvement rather than over-defending an article. Note: I'm not alleging anyone, and if there's any offense taken, my absolute apolgies. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The person in the article is clearly notable. Whether it passes WP:GNG or not is not really determinable as there is one source that is independent but I’m unsure if that suffices as it passing GNG. Although, it seems the sources are of Sri Lanka or newspapers mainly focused on cricket, the exception is Daily News.

Furthermore, I think it can he concluded that this crickteer is of presumed notability as he has been documented in multiple sources that range from 4 years ago to the most recent being a month ago.

In conclusion, I could see this article being of notability even if it’s a stub.

If the consensus is overwhelmingly delete, then I’d recommend it go back to the draft so it can be improved rather than delete because the information there is clearly of use and not useless.

Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with draftification if it's that or deletion although I still think there is enough to justify this article remaining as is. Lookslikely (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The strongest argument to keep is the prize he was awarded, and the rebuttal to that argument is convincing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Herbert Armstrong

[edit]
Henry Herbert Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of meeting WP:NACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to assess changes made since this article was nominated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Still appears to fail notability criteria for WP:NACADEMICS, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR even after recent additions. The Rome Prize is only a scholarship/fellowship for postgrad students given to dozens of applicants every year. Even the brief obit from his college only mentions the American Academy in Rome as another place he pursued studies. This does not appear to meet the "highly selective honor" of NACADEMICS #3. And I don't find enough significant coverage of this individual to meet WP:BIO. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poodle (insult)

[edit]
Poodle (insult) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article describing one time Tony Blair was criticized for going along with US policy. I think a sentence in the article about the incident is enough, and there's nothing here to suggest that this insult has been used on anyone but him. Not the same as attack poodle, from what I can tell, though I see no reason for an article about the latter either. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like editors who commented right after the nomination to examine changes to the article since then.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've looked at the changes made to the article, and they're still woefully inadequate. NOTDICT is pretty clear here, and Mangoe is right -- a dicdef plus a few example usages does not an article make. This just isn't a suitable topic for an article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. In the 15 years this article has existed there have been no citations and it fails notability as pointed out by commenters Valley2city‽ 18:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uttara Foods and Feeds

[edit]
Uttara Foods and Feeds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be written like an advertisement. May need a good dose of WP:TNT to encourage this article to improve since the issues with this article have existed since at least 2009. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheslyn Hay North and Saredon

[edit]
Cheslyn Hay North and Saredon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced orphan about a political ward. If there was anything of use it could be moved to the appropriate village articles, but there is nothing except the ethnicity and religion statistics. KJP1 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack poodle

[edit]
Attack poodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another supposed political term that in fact is used all over the place for the obvious dissonance of "poodle" (presumably they are thinking of toy poodles since a full sized one is in fact a perfectly good hunting dog) and "attack". I'm not seeing any traction for as a term and the phrase in context is obvious; GBook hits in particular are overwhelmed by hits in fiction. The cite support is all "someone used the phrase," not that there's much. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We've got a problem here, as at the moment there is pretty clearly a consensus to merge this article with another article that is itself currently nominated for deletion. A relist allows tome for the result of that discussion to become clear, although I'm not at all sure what to do with this discussion if it is deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wyrley Landywood

[edit]
Great Wyrley Landywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan describing a, completely non-notable, ward of a village. If there is anything useful, and I'm not seeing it, that could be merged into Great Wyrley KJP1 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contus Tech

[edit]
Contus Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't see any improvement on significant coverage since its creation. Hardly to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eitaa Messenger

[edit]
Eitaa Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: the app is never mentioned throughly independent of the other apps outside Iranian state sponsored sites Baratiiman (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to oppose the deletion of the Eitaa Messenger article. Below, I address the claims made in the nomination and demonstrate the article's alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and notability.
---
1. Addressing the Claim that All Websites Mentioning Eitaa are State-Owned
The assertion that every website mentioning Eitaa Messenger is state-owned is an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence. Such a broad statement demands:
Proof for each individual site: The nominator must provide reliable references to show that all websites discussing Eitaa are indeed state-owned.
Reputable third-party verification: Without such evidence, the claim remains speculative and does not justify deletion.
The article itself does not rely exclusively—or even primarily—on Persian or Iranian state-affiliated sources.
Many western even American even American state owned websites have mentioned eitaa specifically, except you want to excuse them to for being Iranina sponsored like for tens or hundreds of sites you did now. Here are a few for instance:
The Open Technology Fund for its security audits (www.opentech.fund/security-safety-audits/iranian-messaging-apps-security-audit).
Academic studies published internationally, such as on PubMed Central (www.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558972).
This diversity of sources underscores the article’s neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards.
---
2.
Before the article was created, Eitaa Messenger already had an entry on Wikidata. This demonstrates the platform’s recognized notability and importance within the digital communication ecosystem. The existence of a Wikidata entry reinforces the need for a detailed and well-referenced Wikipedia page.
---
3.
Widely Used Platform in Iran
Eitaa Messenger is one of the most used instant messaging platforms in Iran, making it a crucial part of the country’s digital infrastructure.
Comparison with Smaller Platforms:Other smaller Iranian platforms, such as Soroush, Bale, Rubika, and iGap, have dedicated Wikipedia pages despite having smaller user bases or less impact. Deleting Eitaa’s article while keeping these others would create an inconsistency and unfair precedent on Wikipedia.
---
4.
The article on Eitaa Messenger provides a balanced perspective, presenting both its features and criticisms.
Neutrality: The article refrains from promoting Eitaa and relies on credible references from diverse sources, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.
If there are specific issues in the article, they should be addressed through constructive edits, not deletion.
---
5.
I think if a user doesn't like an articles content if shouldn't demand the deletion of the whole thing (first without a request and discussion and redirecting to a new self made previewed poorly referenced article (names Iranian applications and after being declined for two times the adding a request for delete) but try to improve it.
---
The Eitaa Messenger article is well-referenced, neutral, and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. The claim that all websites mentioning Eitaa are state-owned is unfounded and requires evidence for each source. Furthermore, the article’s pre-existing Wikidata entry and Eitaa’s status as one of Iran’s most used messaging platforms reinforce its importance.
If the nominator has concerns, they should propose edits to improve the article rather than advocate for its deletion. Removing the page would disregard its significance and undermine Wikipedia’s mission of providing a comprehensive knowledge base.
I strongly urge the community to retain this article and support collaborative efforts to enhance it if needed.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely 93.71.57.57 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 93.71.57.57, please cut your argument down to a readable length. I don't think many editors will read your entire post here. Two short paragraphs would be more effective. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparison with Smaller Platforms:Other smaller Iranian platforms, such as Soroush, Bale, Rubika, and iGap, have dedicated Wikipedia pages despite having smaller user bases or less impact. Deleting Eitaa’s article while keeping these others would create an inconsistency and unfair precedent on Wikipedia. and Before the article was created, Eitaa Messenger already had an entry on Wikidata. This demonstrates the platform’s recognized notability and importance within the digital communication ecosystem. The existence of a Wikidata entry reinforces the need for a detailed and well-referenced Wikipedia page.
    Addressing the Claim that All Websites Mentioning Eitaa are State-Owned
    The assertion that every website mentioning Eitaa Messenger is state-owned is an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence. Such a broad statement demands:
    Proof for each individual site: The nominator must provide reliable references to show that all websites discussing Eitaa are indeed state-owned.
    Reputable third-party verification: Without such evidence, the claim remains speculative and does not justify deletion.
    The article itself does not rely exclusively—or even primarily—on Persian or Iranian state-affiliated sources.
    Many western even American even American state owned websites have mentioned eitaa specifically, except you want to excuse them to for being Iranian sponsored like for tens or hundreds of sites you did now. Here are a few for instance:
    The Open Technology Fund for its security audits (www.opentech.fund/security-safety-audits/iranian-messaging-apps-security-audit).
    Academic studies published internationally, such as on PubMed Central (www.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558972).
    This diversity of sources underscores the article’s neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards. 93.71.57.57 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz: His response has an 87% chance of being AI-generated, per GPTZero. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say 100% Geschichte (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mentioned by VoA as "one of the three domestic messaging apps in Iran". It is reported by Tjaratnews that the Iranian Communications Minister said that it had 19 million users as of December 2023 (whether that's true is not really relevant to notability, the fact that it's being pushed by the Iranian govt in this sort of way is itself notable); Discussed in detail by the BBC here. Furius (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Liz, I'd like to appreciate you, but firstly Wikipedia is no place for AI to thrive. we editors strive to provide evidence backed research and articles for the benefit of the public, however, I'd like you to understand that the long content generated by User:93.71.57.57 is purely AI and as such, I believe there should be some sort of warning to the user. And secondly, the app passes GNG and should not be deleted as there's valid mentions of it by the government of the associated country in notable sources. The article should be improved instead of deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 20:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, Cameremote, I have run across many of your comments in AFDs today and most of them have no signature. Please always sign all comments on talk pages, noticeboards and discussion pages. Other editors should know who they are talking to. Secondly, you frequently are directing your comments towards me for some reason. All I did was advise the editor to be more concise in their remarks which I found very long. I'm not responsible for whether or not editors are using AI and I didn't discuss that. I'm not the AI police, I'm just an admin that reviews AFD discussions. And, of course, we would all prefer for articles to be improved rather than deleted but that requires editors who are willing to spend the time improving articles. If you want to volunteer to do that, that's great, please make that offer known in any AFDs you choose to participate in. Liz Read! Talk! 01:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My absolute apologies. I use my mobile app sometimes, and I tend to forget to add signature. I appreciate all your feedbacks including "make that offer known in any AFDs you choose to participate in." Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 02:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now that that's out of the way, further discussion of the notability of the article subject would be nice.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. especially with the deletion nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Hill Memorial Park

[edit]
Indian Hill Memorial Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently WP:SYNTH and based on unreliable sources: a self-published site ([16] and a WP:USERGENERATED site ([17]), plus a brief local news mention that retails a false claim about this site being the location of the first Catholic Mass in present-day US, and an academic source that does not mention this place. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV of this park. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Added: Withdrawn below per discussion and improvement. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be good to get more eyes on the improvements made while the article was under discussion here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Godzilla (1954 film). asilvering (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo 1960

[edit]
Tokyo 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a life-long Godzilla fan, I'm ashamed to admit that I barely noticed that this article exists. But should it continue to exist? It was published (perhaps prematurely?) in 2013 and hasn't been expanded on since then. Maybe because there's very little significant coverage to warrant a whole article?

I say that because I tried to find as much info as I could, and all I could find was this Screen Rant article and they sum it up perfectly: "There are no signs of Tokyo 1960 being shown again after its original theatrical release, and no clips of it are available. All that remains are some posters (via Lost Media Wiki)".

For all we know, this could be a well-made hoax that caught on. But in case it isn't, I propose merging this with Godzilla (1954 film). It is notable to some degree but not enough to dedicate a whole Wiki article to it. Armegon (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - So, I actually went ahead and bought that book, since as a lifelong Godzilla fan I am genuinely curious about its history, and even it can not really verify whether the film exists or not. The section on Tokyo 1960 describes it as an online legend whose existence was only established through the movie posters being posted on Blog. And while it discusses how Fillipino cinema and political history of the era can be used as evidence in support of fan theories about the film, it admits that this can be nothing more than speculative since nothing aside from the poster images has ever surfaced. Its a decent, paragraph length discussion speculating on the film's existence, which could support a couple sentences mentioning it at Godzilla (1954 film) as a noteworthy online "legend" about the film, but I don't think it alone can really be used to justify keeping as a standalone article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that a major print source has covered it as a potential hoax suggests that this should be mentioned somewhere. Would you consider some WP:ATD here? Shooterwalker (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, its probably worth a brief mention at Godzilla (1954 film) - I'll go ahead and update my recommendation above to make that clear. Rorshacma (talk) 23:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Taylor (music entrepreneur)

[edit]
Andy Taylor (music entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable stub - could not find significant independent sources on Google. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:NBLP - the related article Iron Maiden does not even mention the subject. LR.127 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW. Also G4 of Vishal Raj. Will salt due to multiple, repeated recreations by the (now-blocked) creator at multiple variations of the name. The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Raaj

[edit]
Vishal Raaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible COI issues and reliable sources are clearly lacking. CycloneYoris talk! 21:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

[edit]
Tabish Khan (art critic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like more references have been added linking to interviews on BBC Radio London, a 'talking head' spot on a BBC documentary, and a reference from the Royal Academy of Arts. I think this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. I will find more references too. Likeabutterfly (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember: interviews are primary sources and mentions are not WP:SIGCOV to meet the applicable guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been adding some more references and a good point was raised about WP:SIGCOV so I've looked at other notable UK based art critics - Jonathan Jones, Adrian Searle, Alastair Sooke, Mark Hudson and Waldemar Janusczak are the ones I could find who have Wikipedia entries. In all of the above I found they are all heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. It's unclear to me how a practising art critic, or more broadly a journalist, can be eligible for a Wikipedia entry without heavily relying on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE? I did try to find whether this has been discussed on forums elsewhere within Wikipedia but I wasn't able to. I appreciate I'm relatively new here so happy to be directed to a relevant discussion if it's already been had. Londoneditor284 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One relevant discussion is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; we don't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing that helpful discussion and I agree we shouldn't base arguments at AfD on the existence of other potentially policy-violating pages that haven't been nominated yet. However, the critics in my last comment are among the most notable art critics in the UK and if the bar for WP:SIGCOV is set so high that no UK-based art critic would be eligible for a Wikipedia entry then that would appear excessive given the UK has a significant art scene and critics play an important part in it. Londoneditor284 (talk) 09:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really good points @Londoneditor284. Likeabutterfly (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since several sources have been added, I'll put in a source assessment table below. I am concerned that several of the sources added do not mention Khan at all; there appears to an effort at WP:SYNTH here. Regardless, we still have zero qualifying sources toward GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Yes ✘ No
No Affiliated organizations No These are passing mentions ✘ No
Yes No Deprecated source; see WP:THESUN No Brief quote; not WP:SIGCOV ✘ No
Yes Yes No Brief quotes in coverage of other subjects ✘ No
Yes ~ See WP:BI No Brief quote ✘ No
Hosted on Tabish Khan's personal YouTube channel, not Al Jazeera's. No WP:INTERVIEW on other subjects. ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No Video WP:INTERVIEWs on other subjects; not SIGCOV of Khan ✘ No
No Sources do not mention Khan at all ✘ No
No Interview conducted by Khan No ✘ 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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to discuss new source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked at all the sources mentioned in the analysis table above (except the long video interviews), and agree with the assessment. https://cerihand.com/tabish-khan/ might have just a little bit of secondary coverage, but it's self-published and the part that's secondary isn't SIGCOV. Also, https://studiowest.art/exhibitions/17-now-introducing-2022-an-exhibition-of-shortlisted-artists-from-the-now/ isn't available, but its archived version does mention Tabish Khan, although only as a passing mention in a non-independent source. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rüdiger Bubner

[edit]
Rüdiger Bubner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lacks any clear indication of WP:V and WP:PROF. Xpander (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry folks. @Jfire @Spiderone @Xxanthippe @David Eppstein. I remember exactly putting down the reason into WP:TWINKLE's text area (updated hereby), it must have fell through the cracks somehow. That said, I know Bubner to be a well-respected academic, but that doesn't mean the current article is a good article, every single article I have made in this vein, has either been rejected right out of the gate via WP:AfC, or was moved to draftspace. It's simply unfair. Xpander (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination statement is about what is present in the article. Notability is about a different thing: what is available to say and source about the subject of an article, regardless of whether it is already present in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein, In this sense is WP:AfD criterion, wholly different from that of WP:AfC? Because that's how AfC is judged, based on what is present in the article, not what it in reality is, in other words I'm pretty sure this article would have been discarded were it presented via AfC. Xpander (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rasha Thadani

[edit]
Rasha Thadani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject looks non notable. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON Zuck28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Parable of the Wise and the Foolish Builders#Hymns. Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wise Man Built His House Upon The Rock

[edit]
The Wise Man Built His House Upon The Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Familiar children's song fails WP:GNG, WP:NSONG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. In this article we have a scriptural passage (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE), a self-published blog post, another primary source (the song's lyrics), and an unbylined exegesis of the parable whose inclusion here is a form of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I did not find any qualifying sources on the song in a search, although I expect an article on the parable could be written if one were inclined. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Shyray

[edit]
Oleksandr Shyray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In several searches in Ukrainian and English, I have found no WP:SIGCOV for this player. He seems to fail WP:GNG as a result. Anwegmann (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maksym Shumylo

[edit]
Maksym Shumylo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like others from this team, I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player in Russian, Ukrainian, or English. As a result, this player appears to fail WP:GNG rather clearly. Anwegmann (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marnz Malone

[edit]
Marnz Malone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
As always, musicians are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to show passage of certain specific NMUSIC criteria supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage about them -- but as written, this literally just states that he's a musician who exists, while failing to expand on his existence with even one statement about his career that could be measured against NMUSIC at all. And it's supported by just one footnote, which is reliable and substantive but not enough -- even if you're going for NMUSIC #1 ("notable because media coverage exists"), it still takes more than just one hit of media coverage to get there, and the article still has to say considerably more than just "he exists, the end".
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he has a more substantive notability claim and better sourcing for it, but one hit of media coverage verifying that he exists is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sources that already demonstrate notability. I just haven't had time to add them to the article yet. --Viennese Waltz 18:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way this works is not "create an inadequate article that just says he exists first and then try to make it pass muster later" — the way this works is that you keep it in your sandbox or draftspace until you have already put enough work in it to make it pass muster right off the top, and then move it only after you're done. That is, you put all of the work it needs into it first, and then create it second, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history of Bangladesh

[edit]
Ancient history of Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV fork of History of Bengal and content copied from elsewhere based on synthesis and misrepresentation of sources, this topic fails WP:GNG, there is no such thing as "Ancient Bangladesh", Bangladesh did not even exist as a polity prior to 1971, "the ancient history of Bangladesh" is a ridiculous neologism and an oxymoron that no scholarly source supports. All sources are referring to the region of Bengal, not Bangladesh. WP:TNT applies. Nxcrypto Message 15:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at all of your edits on the Ancient history of Bangladesh I have noticed how you keep on mentioning 'POV' and how you believe I am POV pushing but even after reading Wikipedias page of POV pushing I can't quite seem to understand how I am POV pushing and unless I am mistaken, this page is within Wikipedia guidelines.
Regarding your claim of the page being a fork of the History of Bengal, you are mistaken. This page covers the history coinciding with the political borders of Bangladesh, today. This excludes the modern state of West Bengal and other parts of Bengal which are not within the confines of Bangladesh's border such as Tripura or the Barak Valley. Many pages have been published in this format for example the List of wars involving Bangladesh or History of Bangladesh or History of Bangladesh (1971–present) all of which do not include information for events occurring outside today's modern borders. This page also lacks information concerning specific kingdoms and events unique to the present day state of West Bengal such as the Suhma kingdom. As a sidenote I would like to add that I am open and happy to merge this article with the History of Bangladesh.GtAM6 (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putra Adhiguna

[edit]
Putra Adhiguna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this BLP. The 15 sources cited in the article are author listings, biography listings, interviews, articles written by the subject, alumni listings, coverage from events, seminars, conferences, summits and more interviews. It is unclear what makes the subject notable or what their contributions are which could be used to assess whether any SNG is met. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV in the sources. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 23:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear editor, this below is planned to be add to outline his contribution to the energy transition field. Look forward to your advice whether this will be sufficiently relevant. Thank you.
Putra has made notable contributions to research on Southeast Asia's energy transition. His research expertise spans various aspects of the energy transition, including in outlining the key enablers and challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology application (1), critical transition minerals sourcing and related industrial developments (2), as well as key factors to drive Indonesia’s energy transition (3)(4).
His perspectives on the energy sector have been regularly featured in major news outlets in the region, covering wide-ranging topics in energy such as gas investments in Southeast Asia (5), Singapore’s clean energy imports (6), and regional green energy cooperation in ASEAN (7).
His research works have also been cited in publications such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) report on Enhancing Indonesia’s Power System (8), RAND Corporation report on China’s Role in the Global Development of Critical Resources (9) and an article in Communications Earth & Environment journal (A part of Nature journal) titled The viability of co-firing biomass waste to mitigate coal plant emissions in Indonesia (10)
He was part of the team of international peer reviewers for the IEA report titled An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia (11) and his insights and contribution has been acknowledged in International Institute for Sustainable Development publication titled Boom and Bust: The fiscal implications of fossil fuel phase-out in six large emerging economies (12)
(1) https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-southeast-asian-market-context-sorting-out-myths-and-realities-cost  
(2) https://energyshift.institute/work/0-4-of-global-battery-production-capacity-indonesias-battery-and-ev-developments-are-far-out-of-step-with-its-nickel-exploitation-promise/  
(3) https://ieefa.org/resources/indonesia-wants-go-greener-pln-stuck-excess-capacity-coal-fired-power-plants
(4) https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Indonesias-Biomass-Cofiring-Bet_February-2021.pdf
(5) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/gas-investments-in-se-asia-undermine-green-energy-climate-push-report
(6) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/st-explains-s-pore-announced-more-ambitious-clean-import-targets-what-would-this-mean-for-our-energy-transition
(7) https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/583121
(8) https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/247b5328-2cd7-4fbb-a800-dd1c71f6e562/EnhancingIndonesiasPowerSystem.pdf
(9) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2000/RRA2096-1/RAND_RRA2096-1.pdf
(10) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01588-0
(11) https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-net-zero-emissions-in-indonesia
(12) https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-07/fossil-fuel-phase-out-briics-economies.pdf
**Viewpoints and research
*Carbon Capture and Storage*
Putra’s view on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is that it will not be easily deployed in cost-sensitive regions such as Southeast Asia (13). However, more affluent countries, such as Singapore or Japan, might be interested in exporting their carbon dioxide emissions to countries that can provide storage locations (14). Nevertheless, he advocated that such export activities will require stringent standards with clear long term liability agreements (15) (16).
(13) https://ieefa.org/articles/widespread-adoption-carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-technologies-south-east-asia  
(14) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-japan-sign-agreement-to-collaborate-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-tech  
(15) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-cannot-make-CO2-disappear-just-by-exporting-it  
(16) https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2024/05/27/new-rules-set-to-kick-start-japanese-co2-exports-to-ri.html
*Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition*
His research on critical minerals primarily focused on nickel development and the battery and electric vehicle industry (2). He has advocated for more ambitious industrial developments to further enhance the role of producing countries in the battery and electric vehicle value chain (2).
Putra has also raised significant concerns about the low social and environmental standards of nickel development in Indonesia, including its implications for indigenous populations (17) and the potential use of forced labour (18). He has urged the government to conduct transparent assessments and implement improvements in these areas, as he outlined in his interviews with BBC News and Voice of America (17) (18).
(17) https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/c1e5x2k7kp8o  
(18) https://www.voaindonesia.com/a/amerika-serikat-masukkan-nikel-indonesia-ke-daftar-pekerja-paksa-/7816453.html  
His expertise on critical minerals in Southeast Asia is evident from his interviews featured in prominent international publications such as The New York Times (19), Barron’s (20), NPR (21), The Straits Times (22), Channel News Asia (23) and Bloomberg news (24)
(19) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/business/indonesia-nickel-china-us.html
(20) https://www.barrons.com/news/indonesia-bets-on-se-asia-s-first-battery-plant-to-become-ev-hub-8328fe72  
(21) https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1231061492/a-leading-candidate-for-president-in-indonesia-wants-the-country-to-increase-coa
(22) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-set-to-become-ev-battery-battleground  
(23) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/indonesias-industrialisation-has-fallen-short-its-regional-peers-analyst-4122381
(24) https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/10/17/indonesias-fixer-in-chief-bows-out-as-prabowo-takes-the-helm/  
*Trump election, China and Southeast Asia’s Energy Transition*
With the recent election of Trump as President of the United States, Putra has shared his views on its impact toward the Southeast Asia’s energy transition in Asia's prominent news outlet, Nikkei Asia. According to him, Trump's withdrawal from international climate agreements will have a notable impact on climate diplomacy in Southeast Asia's energy transition, although its effect on energy investments in the region will likely remain limited. (25)
In separate publications featured in China's major news outlets, Caixin and China Daily, he argued that Trump's rise to power would likely create a larger role for China in Southeast Asia's energy transition (26) (27). Major Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia, stand to benefit significantly from increased engagement with China due to its capacity for rapid investment deployment. However, raising the standards of Chinese overseas investments remains essential. (27) Prior, he has also commented on Xinhua News how China’s coal provinces and their rapid industrial development toward clean energy can also provide inspirations for coal reliant economies to transition to greener industries (28)
(25) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-Trump-might-shake-up-Southeast-Asia-s-clean-energy-transition
(26) https://www.caixinglobal.com/2024-12-06/commentary-will-a-trump-presidency-give-china-a-bigger-role-in-southeast-asias-energy-transition-102265317.html  
(27) https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/10/WS67579329a310f1265a1d1fb0.html  
(28) https://english.news.cn/20240917/b74ec11d54c244978a5b866ba286716f/c.html  
*Indonesia’s energy Transition*
Putra has also been a notable voice in outlining the key enablers and challenges in Indonesia’s energy transition. This includes highlighting the considerations for the use of biomass to generate electricity on Reuters (29) and International Monetary Fund Finance & Development Magazine (30). He has also shared his views on Indonesia’s role in the climate and energy transition in international events held by the University of Maryland (31) in College Park and United States - Indonesia Society in Washington DC (32).
His views on the use of biomass and nuclear energy in Indonesia has been featured in Channel News Asia’s feature documentary titled “Power to the People – Bioenergy” (33) and “Insight - Will Indonesia Go Nuclear” (34).
His work while at IEEFA covering the plan for the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for Indonesia’s power generation (35) has been cited by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission report on its Corruption Vulnerability Assessment (Kajian kerentanan korupsi) (36).
He has also advocated the need to transition to greener energy in the islands of the archipelago, as outlined in an Associated Press article (34). Putra has also emphasized the need to optimize international assistance such as the $20 billion funding by U.S. and its allies (35) and anticipate energy consumption growth and emissions in new sectors such as the data centres (36).
(29) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/feature-betting-on-bamboo-indonesian-villages-struggle-to-source-safe-green-po-idUSL8N2LU4I6/
(30) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/country-case-indonesia-solar-future-jacques  
(31) https://cgs.umd.edu/events/indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance-open-forum-discussion  
(32) https://usindo.org/feature/special-open-forum-discussion-on-indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance/  
(33) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/power-people/bioenergy-4439271  
(34) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/insight-2022-2023/will-indonesia-go-nuclear-3029031  
(35) https://www.kpk.go.id/id/publikasi-data/kajian/kerentanan-korupsi-program-gasifikasi-pembangkit-listrik-pt-pln  
(36) https://apnews.com/article/business-indonesia-g-20-summit-bali-climate-and-environment-a73dcbcb60d9a42904f7d81025b5feac  
(37) https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-allies-announce-20-billion-package-to-wean-indonesia-off-coal-11668503675
(38) https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3235499/dark-clouds-ahead-indonesias-emissions-surge-asias-need-data-centres-singapores-offshore-push 222.124.125.10 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to see at least a partial review of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think they might meet criteria 7 of WP:NPROF. NPROF applies to anyone involved in scholarly research, so I think Adhiguna's roles at policy research think tanks qualify them to be considered under NPROF. Criteria 7 is that the subject must have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", and it notes that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may qualify. Adhiguna is clearly very widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition, including in publications like the NYT, BBC and WSJ. They also seem to have had a significant impact outside of academia by using their scholarly research to inform Indonesian policymaking, including contributing to some influential reports like the IEA one and being a regular columnist on the energy transition for one of Indonesia's largest newspapers. I agree that they definitely don't meet WP:GNG, but I think they make a reasonable case under criteria 7 of WP:NPROF as an influential subject-matter expert. MCE89 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please list their 'substantial impact' and explain how they are 'very widely quoted as an expert' after you have actually read the articles from the NYT, BBC and WSJ? Also, please clarify how you determined that these quotes have meaningful impact? I believe they are merely routine/run of the mill statements. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did read the articles. I'm not sure what you mean by routine/run of the mill statements - they are pretty clearly being quoted by each of these publications in their capacity as a subject matter expert, which is exactly what is described under 7(a) of WP:NPROF. As I said, I'm not claiming that any of these articles constitute SIGCOV or that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as someone engaged in "scholarly research" all that needs to be established is that they meet one of the seven criteria under NPROF. I think the most applicable criteria is that they have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which may be satisfied if they are "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (note "quoted" - I'm aware that they are not a major focus of any of the articles, but they are certainly widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition). So the reason I think they meet criteria 7 is that (a) they have been widely quoted in prominent international media outlets, including the WSJ, NYT, BBC, Reuters etc., as an expert in their area of research, satisfying 7(a) of NPROF, and (b) they have clearly influenced Indonesian policymaking in their area of research, as demonstrated by being cited or consulted on various government projects and publications. MCE89 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So, TLDR: you actually don’t have anything meaningful or substantial to show from the NYT, BBC or WSJ articles? Instead, you’ve decided to explain NPROF#7 to me. Fascinating, but I’m still waiting for evidence of this so called ‘significant impact’.
    Let's take the NYT example: Putra Adhiguna says “One way or another, Europe and the U.S. will need Indonesia nickel" and "They should be coming to this country figuring out how they can do it better." This is just a routine interview byte as he was part of Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.. They almost always comment on everything and that’s why this falls under routine coverage.
    The entire article reads like a collection of his viewpoints and arguments - Putra Adhiguna emphasized this, Putra Adhiguna shared his views on that, Putra Adhiguna argued this, Putra Adhiguna commented on that - just a series of views, emphasizes, comments and arguments. Yet, there’s nothing about the work he has done or his achievements, because there aren’t any. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe tone it down a bit? My point was just that all of those articles are very standard examples of what it looks like when an expert in a particular field is quoted in the mainstream press about their area of expertise, which is exactly what 7(a) describes. Yes, it's a routine interview bite, but that's what "quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" is describing. I'm not claiming that any of these sources are SIGCOV of Putra Adhiguna, but that's not what's required - NPROF specifically says that researchers may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". It seems like you're applying the GNG standard and asking for secondary SIGCOV of the work he has done and his achievements, but I don't think NPROF requires that at all. What I'm saying is that the fact that he is a public-facing expert who frequently comments in the international press, writes for major Indonesian newspapers and seems to have some measurable influence on policymaking processes in Indonesia is enough to show that he is "notably influential in the world of ideas" per NPROF, even without the secondary SIGCOV that would be needed to meet GNG.
    We're in agreement about the absence of SIGCOV though and I don't think this is particularly productive, so let's maybe leave it there? MCE89 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without concrete examples of specific policies shaped by his work or recognition within academic or policy circles, it’s hard to see how his routine media mentions meet the bar set by NPROF. It seems more like he was quoted in conventional media as a person working for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis rather than as an academic expert. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't evaluate the wall of text and citation dump, but I can see very clearly that the subject badly fails WP:PROF: he lacks any engineering, teaching, education, or scientific degree – as well as an earned doctorate of any kind. He has never published or even written any peer-reviewed articles. He is a basically a talking head. For that, he should be evaluated using WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many resources are not related to the subject of this biography article. Even more do not discuss this subject. More citations/resources needed that discuss this subject significantly. I'm agree with the nominator talk about this article. Ariandi Lie Let's talk 04:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully with some more time some further ability to consider the sources presented can be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 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, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, Agus Damanik and Ariandi Lie, I urge you all to vote for or against, so it will be easy for an admin when closing this discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
based on the reason I stated
  • Delete. I was hoping to close this discussion, but I found it close-cut enough that I decided to take off my admin hat and look into this. IMHO this is a clear fail of SIGCOV/GNG, and so the only argument to keep is WP:PROF#7, "expert in the field". I don't believe this individual meets that criterion either, though it is borderline. Writing opinion pieces doesn't count for much. Being quoted counts for more, but there's just not enough instances, and the way those quotes are glossed does not to me suggest he is a leader in his field (yet). I suspect this is a case of TOOSOON; it's quite possible we will have clearer evidence of notability in the future. At the moment, though, there isn't enough for an PROF#7 pass, and the promotional intent evident in the article pushed me further toward "delete". Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maharashtra State Level Public Enterprises

[edit]
List of Maharashtra State Level Public Enterprises (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list of public enterprises in Maharashtra, India, fails WP:NLIST for lack of independent, secondary sources discussing these entities as a group. Furthermore, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG by failing WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which is what this page is -- down to phone numbers and email addresses. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Muslims of Ceuta

[edit]
Union of Muslims of Ceuta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page since 2009. This seems to be a political party that never stood in an election. I see references which speak of the Muslim community in Ceuta but I'm not seeing them refer to this political party. I'd be interested to see if others can find sources that meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or "Merge" to List of political parties in Spain, WP:NORG shows that political parties don't have inherent notability, and this party only contended a single, local election, with very few sources covering anything surrounding the party. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Of the more established, policy-compliant opinions, I see a disagreement that the article could be salvaged into an encyclopedia topic, and I think the discussion has run out of steam. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Moliere Dimanche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. CutlassCiera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. CutlassCiera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [30] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca talk to me! 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My presumption is that the subject of the article wrote this article or is heavily involved in its creation. I'll concede it is possible that the creator is telling the truth about their identity and they simply find the figure admirable. Shortly after at least some content was removed for copyright infringement, the subject's photograph and the subject's artwork were re-uploaded by the subject into Wikimedia Commons and released into the public domain. This is simply too great of a coincidence to ignore. All of this A bulk of this new user's edits are related to the subject. Frankly, the only evidence I can weigh in favor that this article was not written by Dimanche is this little viewed canvassing attempt I found on Twitter to oppose the deletion. This is a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules, specifically those around political advocacy and the rules against canvassing. When weighing my response against the weak keeps, please consider this might be part of what is influencing my delete vote.
The claims are artist and plantiff in an important court case. His candidacy as of now, in of itself, would not qualify him under WP:POLITICIAN and that does not seem to be a fact on which the article creator is basing their argument that the subject meets the various notability criteria.
On the note of his time as an artist, the writer does make a strong effort to attempt to demonstrate WP:GNG through mentioning various, wider distribution publications in which Dimache is mentioned or the subject. A Google News search indicates these are the ONLY third party coverage and while they are not all published on the same day, the similar content strikes me as creating an article on a news story covered in 109 newspapers. For example, the Salon is a literal republication of The Conversation's piece on the Dimanche. These duplicative citations, combined with mentions such as taking a job at Winn-Dixie lead me to believe these are an effort to mask a lack of notability. I cannot consider him to have met the guidelines for artists.
The second is his status as the plaintiff of Dimanche v. Brown. I believe that, while the case itself is notable (and a good outcome for the country), Dimanche would be someone notable for a single event. Plaintiffs Lonnie E. Smith, of Smith v. Allwright, Otis McDonald of McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission do not have separate articles under this policy. I would not be opposed to some sort of merger with the court case. Additional information included in this article about the plantiff could be relevant. As I end all discussions, particularly those from articles written in a promotional manner. Wikipedia is not a badge of honor. An article about yourself or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: The Conversation releases its articles under a CC 4.0 license. They are not so much syndicated like a comic strip but rather available freely to any publication that needs to boost its inventory of quality articles in an era of readers demanding instant, infinite content. Salon appears to regularly publish the Conversation's articles so I don't think its republication in Salon is so unique as to warrant double counting it as two unique sources to meet GNG. I also searched The Chicago Tribune and the Associated Press and received zero results. I would recommend if you want to demonstrate notability, then you need to do more than just say he's an artist with a republished article. Wikipedia's Prison art demonstrates prison art is not so rare and new its artists are inherently more notable and requires less coverage than others to be here. Finally, An article about yourself or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I would say about that, is that what you call republishing, I would call an endorsement. I think it is not as simple as The Conversation clicking "publish" and it appears in articles all over the world. I think those publishers independently decide if they want to promote the content of the article to their own readers. As you can see with the Malta Independent publication, it was in-print, even though you can read it online. That means Maltese people held that article in their hands and read it at home. That's just the mediterranean. The Conversation is based in Australia, MENAFN is for North Africa, and Dimanche is an American artist. That's Europe, Africa and Australia. The Good Men Project is based in Dallas, and their article is just one region in North America: https://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries-phtz/. The criminal justice initiative by the John Galsworthy foundation endorsed it: https://www.galsworthycjr.org/civil-society-issues/2018/9/3/through-his-art-a-former-prisoner-diagnoses-the-systemic-sickness-of-floridas-penitentiaries. As to your search in Chicago Tribune, it probably depends on what search engine you use, but I use Yandex. It's the same article, and I guess its up to how you interpret it, whether its publisher's needing content, or as I say, endorsements from publishers of the what the focus of the Conversation piece is about. Regardless of how you view that particular article, meeting GNG was not solely relying on that one. Again, I was not aiming to focus on the global recognition of the art, which is a fact, regardless of how global syndication is viewed. I wanted to focus on what the art meant to people, especially those involved in the prison reform movement, and the art sparked an important conversation. Despite being a "featured" article in multiple countries, the art also relied on another feature: https://www.staugustine.com/story/news/2016/08/12/2016-08-12-1/16300345007/. These articles are years apart, and this article was also published in print, and Mr. Dimanche was on the cover. It also relied on Folio, and I honestly did not expect to debate an artists, recognition with any involvement with Folio, whatsoever. In the art world, it's one of the most prestigious publications, and all artists vie for some type of mention there. I even found one in Arbus, but the link was broken, so I didn't use it. The article also cited an appearance at the International Center of Photography where he was a headliner, again talking about his art. Maybe I didn't go into detail about the coverage, but I was not trying to make the article all about his achievements as an artist, and I didn't want to make it promotional, like he was Pablo Picasso or anything like that. But it seems to me like any time there is a feature on his art, its a pretty significant story every time, and I don't believe there is a genuine dispute about whether or not he meets GNC based on art alone. That's not to mention, yet another feature, in the Marking Time book, or the local radio appearances talking about art. I didn't cite any of the radio appearances I found because it just came off as promotional, and he primarily discusses upcoming art exhibits at different venues. But with global recognition, headlining panel discussions about art, in-print circulation of the art, and a feature in a book published by Rutgers, he clearly meets GNG. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "That means Maltese people held that article in their hands and read it at home." That is aggressively irrelevant to the matter at hand. These non-sequiturs, claims of endorsement by publications, other misrepresentations, and selective reading (no one is saying The Conversation is a bad citation, just that it shouldn't be triple-counted) serve no point, but to bog down those who disagree with you in a Gish gallop.--Mpen320 (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Endorsement" is just my view of it, and you are free to disagree. We can agree to disagree on that point, but until we ask the publishers directly, we will never know. Maybe they just want to share various perspectives. Your guess is as good as mine, but they chose to amplify the content in multiple countries, and that's a good thing. I don't intend for this to be an argument, but you said "Salon appears to regularly publish the Conversation's articles so I don't think its republication in Salon is so unique as to warrant double counting it as two unique sources to meet GNG". That's why I had to demonstrate that it went far beyond Salon. I thought you were saying that Salon and the Conversation were pretty much one and the same, and I provided additional sources that conclude that every publication can't be a doppelgänger of the Conversation. You also said "I would recommend if you want to demonstrate notability, then you need to do more than just say he's an artist with a republished article". So I provided the feature from the St. Augustine Record, the ICP citation, and the Marking Time feature because you implied that the only source was that one article. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just clarifying that there were additional sources already included in the article, and that the reach of the Conversation article was global. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm undecided as to keep/delete, but I've gone ahead and trimmed down the article to remove puffery and badly-sourced information. @NovembersHeartbeat, some advice: write shorter comments and use paragraph breaks instead of composing a huge undivided block of text.. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you mean by write them myself, but whatever you say. This is exactly why I opted to stay out of this conversation. If my input isn't welcome, that is fine. I have no idea how you differentiate between what you cal "fluff" on one hand, but expect to be "notable" on the other hand. I just looked at the edits you made, and you deleted the citation that was added by the user who nominated the article for deletion in the first place. I didn't write that part, and was actually accused of trying to obscure the prison stint, so I am wholly confused as to what is considered "fluff" and what is not. Then you deleted an edit written by an administrator, who made that edit to clarify that the view about systemic injustice was subjective, so I'm of the view that you seem to be searching for issues with the article, when there are none. If that is what this is about, I won't say anything else about it. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies for the "write them yourself" comment: I initially thought this was AI-generated but then noticed some grammar errors that made me reconsider, and you seem to have read my comment before I removed that part of it.
    As to the rest of your comment, other editors are certainly free to disagree with me on what exactly constitutes fluff/puffery, in which case they're welcome to undo some or all of my changes and I won't argue, but in general it's important to avoid placing undue weight on certain viewpoints (as was the case with the extended quotes section - a collection of praise from different authors compromises the article's neutrality), using peacock or promotional wording, and presenting opinions as fact. As for notability, you shouldn't need to argue in the article that the subject is notable if the references support notability. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I have no problem with any of the edits you made, but puffery implies that I was trying to pretty it up, but if what was removed was not written by me, then was there really an issue about puffery at all? Aside from that, I totally understand that you may be concerned about genuine neutrality, but I hope you also understand I am not attempting to do any of that. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you referring to this? That was a good edit because it replaced an opinion presented as fact with an opinion presented as opinion, but it looks like the text that was there before then was added by you. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I initially did it but it was modified by Buff. You took it out entirely. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I don't really understand what you mean by but if what was removed was not written by me, then was there really an issue about puffery at all? since your version is more biased than what I removed. Not that it matters, puffery is puffery regardless of who wrote it. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant was that it was changed to something else by the admin. That should have been the end of it. If you deleted it as "puffery", you deleted what an admin deemed appropriate. The bottom line is that whatever the admin decided to change was changed. You, then, deleted that modification as puffery on the mistaken belief that it was as I wrote it. Even if I did, that same admin didn't identify it as puffery when he made his edit, but somehow you did. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 01:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, after posting my last reply I went back and restored some of the content in question. Apologies to NovembersHeartbeat and any readers for the unnecessary argument. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Vinzons#Public secondary schools. ✗plicit 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinzons Pilot High School

[edit]
Vinzons Pilot High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and does not cite any reliable sources that would otherwise prove its notability. While its students won on an international award, it is insufficient to establish notability. In addition, this award was not significantly covered by any other news media, only the regional arm of GMA Network (the linked article).

I suggest converting this title into a redirect to Vinzons since this school is listed under Vinzons § Public secondary schools and per WP:ATD-R. AstrooKai (Talk) 13:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bongshin Club

[edit]
Bongshin Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable football club. No indication of notability. No claim to notability. No content on the corresponding Korean page either. C679 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG -Samoht27 (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ as obvious hoax, WP:CSD#G3 —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara-Prussian conflict (1552)

[edit]
Vijayanagara-Prussian conflict (1552) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure hoax, but for some reason, rejected by editor who probably should wait until they are autopatrolled or a new page reviewer before making this kind of decision. Not a single source found for the "facts" in this article. Main source doesn't even mention Prussia[31]. No evidence found for the existence of a "treaty of Zanzibar" (or "Zanibar") in 1552. Article seems to be based on an unattributed copy of a Simple Wikipedia article[32].

Please delete this nonsense ASAP. Fram (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small Leaks Sink Ships

[edit]
Small Leaks Sink Ships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article moved to main space without verification, no notable media sources. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LVLY

[edit]
LVLY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, sources with little credibility and only passing mentions. Article creator blocked WP:SOCK Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to New York Institute of Technology. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 03:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
WNYT (internet radio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Internet radio station; just two sources; TV station in Albany should be primary topic. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 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! 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it existed until 2023, so it should get online coverage. None of the keep !votes have provided evidence of coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New York Institute of Technology. College radio stations, regardless of whether they broadcast terrestrially or over the internet, are not "inherently" notable just for existing — like all other types of media outlets, a college radio station still has to be shown to pass WP:GNG. But the only references here are a very short blurb in Billboard, which is fine but not substantive enough to get this over the bar all by itself, and content self-published by its own parent institution, which is not support for notability at all. We also do not simply assume that GNG-worthy coverage exists just because the topic's been around for a long time — you must find and show evidence that enough GNG-worthy coverage does exist, not just speculate about the possibility that it might. And since we are not limited to sourcing that Googles, but are allowed to dig out and use sourcing that we find in archives like ProQuest or newspapers.com, Googlabilty problems are not an exemption from GNG either.
    So I'm willing to reconsider if somebody actually finds and shows hard evidence that sufficient GNG-worthy coverage actually exists to fix the article with, but media outlets aren't exempted from GNG just because editors assume that better sourcing might exist than anybody's ever been bothered to actually add to the article.
    But per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, college radio stations which don't clear the bar for their own articles should be retained as redirects to their host institutions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Spike Lee. ✗plicit 14:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (still photographer)

[edit]
David Lee (still photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Everything is related to his brother Spike Lee in a search. Article is sourced to a self published website. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 That's not a bad idea on a family section in the Spike Lee article. I would support a selective merge to Spike Lee as an WP:ATD if an editor steps forward who wants to take that on.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to merge to make consensus a bit clearer. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Guest (researcher and author)

[edit]
John Guest (researcher and author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probable WP:AUTOBIO based on primary sources (letters), self-published books, ... The "Guest family history" has not received significant attention ([41]), and I see no other evidence of meeting our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram I am a newby. This first article has been a journey. I am not sure where to declare a confliction of interest, so I will make the declaration here. I have recently completed a hard edit. Can you revist my current page. I am asking my article reverts from being nominated for deletetion """" keep """. NLA-Collections (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the article revamp?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Hernández (fashion designer)

[edit]
Paola Hernández (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Survived previous AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adeolu Akinyemi

[edit]
Adeolu Akinyemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: Author and WP:GNG. The sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV and the awards received are not notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1oneam

[edit]
1oneam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promo piece on a non-notable musician. Rejected at AfC but moved into the mainspace regardless, speedy requested but the tag was removed, so here we are at AfD. No evidence of notability, the sources don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, BEFORE finds only social media and streaming sites, and there is nothing in this draft to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this was moved into mainspace despite AFC rejection, let's get a solid consensus here to avoid an easily contestable soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 11:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Te Moana

[edit]
David Te Moana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and little to no SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • MacSmith, James (5 February 2006). "Making a big impression", The Sun-Herald (Sydney)
  • Hills, Murray (18 February 2006). "Young prop David now less of a Goliath ", Taranaki Daily News
  • Lampp, Peter (26 July 2006). "Perth prop seeks Manawatu place", Manawatu Standard
  • Millmow, Jonathan (11 August 2006). "'Big Dog' learning new tricks", The Dominion Post
  • Morton, Jim (5 April 2007). "RU: Big Dog howling at Super 14 recall", AAP Australian Sports News Wire
  • Lampp, Peter (17 October 2007). "Big Dog puts health, Turbos ahead of Reds", Manawatu Standard
  • "Big Dog on tight leash at Wellington", Manawatu Standard, 17 July 2010
  • Lampp, Peter (23 November 2010). "Te Moana set for return. Lack of game time and family life sway prop", Manawatu Standard
Note that I've only listed substantive articles; there are many more articles with more or less relevant info about the player, varying from interviews with him to match reports or team namings. Ruggalicious (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lars B. Andersen

[edit]
Lars B. Andersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are:

Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search, and the civic appointments are not so rare that they constitute awards per WP:ANYBIO #1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article had some broken links, and they are now fixed. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: articles from government sites and major label magazine with picture of him seems not to be trivial. Found and added mentions from Portuguese [[59]] and US main newsmedia sources [[60]][[61]] with interviews (see article). Multiple articles discuss him at length as the subject of the article, so article fulfils WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Zralba (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The government sites are discussions of his company that trivially mention him. The Labels and Labelling magazines source is a WP:TRADES publication that is considered non-independent. The Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS you linked are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES since they consist entirely of his answers; they are not independent sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person meets the notability criteria with significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That he was selected by the now UK prime minister (who must have visited many companies that day) is significant and adds to notability. Teacher2019 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you outline what you regard as WP:SIGCOV, please? There are a total of 11 sources. One is passing mention - literally a caption on a photo. Two are about the company he is CEO of getting an award - but notability is not inherited. Three just cite membership of organisations or positions held. Another is just passing mention in a "thank you" speech. Another is about an ancestor. One cites his wife's name. That essentially leaves two references. Meanwhile, there are five 'citation needed' tags currently on the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think the subject of the article does show to be involved in at senhor levels ie various institutions as part of the City of London and its unique heritage. My personal research of the subject lead me here and has added my research. Charliecroft (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for the reason me ruined earlier I think there is genuine notability in the context of City of London Livery history Charliecroft (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned earlier. Apologies auto correct
Charliecroft (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, User:Charliecroft, I can't see that you ever edited this article, much less added any new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather unusual to see an editor who had made two edits, ever, return after a 16 year gap to participate in an AfD... Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Adding a source assessment table to clarify the problematic nature of the sources available:
Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No Andersen's own parliamentary testimony ~ No WP:PRIMARYSOURCE ✘ No
No Political party website No A passing mention; he appears in a photo and that's it. ✘ No
No See WP:TRADES Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in context of his company ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARYSOURCE; see WP:INTERVIEW Yes ✘ No
No WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A WP:INTERVIEW Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Andersen; discussion is of his company and Brexit ✘ No
Yes ~ UK Government blog post No WP:TRIVIALMENTION of him in context of his company ✘ No
No Official bio; WP:PRIMARYSOURCE No Yes ✘ No
No No WP:TRIVIALMENTION ✘ No
No WP:USERGENERATED genealogy site No No in-depth discussion ✘ No
Andersen, Jenifer. Domine Dirige Nos An Introduction to the City of London
 No Book authored by his wife No ✘ 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}}.
Indeed. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to NBL1 East since there are no objections to the proposal. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Nationals

[edit]
Canberra Nationals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to NBL1 East since there are no objections to this redirect proposal after two weeks. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Comets

[edit]
Sydney Comets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Peters (software engineer)

[edit]
Tim Peters (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While relatively well known in the Python community I'm not finding general reliable sources to establish notability. NE Ent 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No notability for wikipedia, would be enough for pythonpedia thou. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP If someone has created two things that are notable (Timsort and Zen of Python) it makes sense that that person has notability. Also, without this article, how would anyone know the creators of those two things is the same person? LarsHolmberg (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Peters is probably also mainly responsible for SpamBayes (though Gary Robinson shares significant credit).
(Among Python things, he also created the doctest module, which has its own WP page.) RW Dutton (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. (I confess my interest as the first editor of Tim Peters (software engineer).) I can write more on Peters' notability, but I should respond to others first.
What is meant by "While relatively well known in the Python community I'm not finding general reliable sources to establish notability."? Is the concern that sources like the PSF and the PyPy Team lack independence when it comes to Peters? Or is the suggestion that being one of the most influential Python core developers is not in itself high-impact enough to make one notable? Or that Peters is maybe not really that influential inside Python? In any case, Peters' impact outside of Python is provably high enough to make him notable on its own. RW Dutton (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability in relation to Timsort: some of the evidence for Peters' notability in relation to Timsort. (Apologies to all for the late submission, but this has taken a lot of time.)
  • FOLDOC I'm not sure whether English Wikipedia considers FOLDOC a good source these days, but Peters has an entry there, simply as "[t]he implementer of Timsort".
  • Google V8 team Google's official V8 dev blog on V8's (and so Chrome's) adoption of Timsort also called attention to Peters:

    Timsort, initially developed by Tim Peters for Python in 2002, could best be described as an adaptive stable Mergesort variant. Even though the details are rather complex and are best described by the man himself or the Wikipedia page, the basics are easy to understand.

  • Sebastian Wild and collaborators In 2022 the University of Liverpool put out "Liverpool computer scientists improve Python sorting function" (picked up by IEEE Xplore, summarised with no Peters material by ACM TechNews). This was about work done related to Timsort by Sebastian Wild, a senior lecturer in CS at Liverpool as well as head of the Algorithms Group at the University of Marburg, and others.

    Dr. Wild had been studying TimSort, a custom sorting algorithm invented by Tim Peters, an influential Python developer, and specifically its merge policy, which determines the order in which detected runs are successively "merged" to form longer runs, until eventually the list is fully sorted.

    Dr. Wild said ... "I'm very happy that Tim Peters himself took our idea into the CPython reference implementation. His Timsort implementation is a masterpiece of algorithm engineering, and nobody knows this code like he does."

    Now this was more or less a university press release. So not exactly the most prestigious kind of scientific communication, but we don't need peer-reviewed publications for this purpose. In any case Wild's quoted statement about Peters is a direct statement from a topic expert. Also, to be clear, it's a press release from the University of Liverpool, something which is quite independent of Peters and the Python commmunity. Nor is Wild a Pythonist. On the other hand, Peters had accepted Wild's suggested changes to CPython's Timsort (and maybe might accept future changes?), so arguably that reduces Wild's independence here.
Wild has given further coverage to Peters in other non-peer-reviewed but expert publications. In his Fall 2022 lectures for Liverpool's COMP526 "Efficient Algorithms", specifically in video 3-7 of unit 3:
  • from 3:34, some heartening admiration ;) as well as information about how Peters managed the revision of Python's timsort to Powersort[1]
  • at 5:20 and 6:07 discussion of why and how Peters came up with the merge system for Timsort[2]
Wild also covered this ground in his "Quicksort, Timsort, Powersort - Algorithmic ideas, engineering tricks, and trivia behind CPython’s new sorting algorithm" talk at PyCon US 2023 (Wild's upload of the video):
  • at 11:34, a similar discussion of Peters' original work on the merge system[3]
  • at 5:30, some new information about how Timsort got its name[4]
Wild gave a conference talk with the same name (and presumably much the same material) at Dagstuhl Seminar 23211, "Scalable Data Structures" in 2023, but there seems to be no recording of that (and it would not have been peer-reviewed either anyway).
Wild also coauthored the Gelling, Nebel, Smith and Wild "Multiway Powersort" paper which was accepted for the ALENEX 2023 symposium:

Indeed, the need of a fast and stable general-purpose sorting method for the CPython reference implementation of the Python programming language was the main motivation for Tim Peters to develop a new variant of Mergesort, known as Timsort

  • Other CS research literature: several other research papers also mention Peters in ways beyond simply naming or discussing Timsort or citing Peters' work. Here are a few.
  • Nicolas Auger, Vincent Jugé, Cyril Nicaud and Carine Pivoteau, "On the Worst-Case Complexity of TimSort":

    TimSort is a sorting algorithm designed in 2002 by Tim Peters [ 9], for use in the Python programming language. It was thereafter implemented in other well-known programming languages such as Java

    And, as advocated by de Gouw et al. and Tim Peters himself, we strongly believe that the best solution would be to correct the algorithm as in the current version of Python, in order to keep it clean and simple.

There is also a conference poster for this paper. It mentions Peters twice, including by beginning a graphical TimSort timeline with a small photograph of him and the text "Invented by Tim Peters".
  • CS and practitioner textbooks Professional and college textbooks from major publishers which cover Timsort have also made a point of crediting Peters. This is again a partial list. It omits all Python books, and several others.
  • An undergraduate algorithms textbooks which discusses Timsort in some detail and names Peters as its creator: Data Structures and Algorithms in Java: A Project-Based Approach by Myers, ISBN 9781009260336 , CUP 2025, section 10.4.3 "Merge Sort in Practice: Python’s Timsort", p. 323:

    Timsort, named after its creator, Tim Peters, is the default sorting algorithm in Python ...

  • A short description in another algorithms textbook from Wiley, Data Structures and Algorithms in Java by Goodrich, Tamassia, and Goldwasser, 6th ed., ISBN 9781118808573 , Wiley 2014, ch. 13, p. 562:

    Tim-sort (designed by Tim Peters) is a hybrid approach that is essentially a bottom-up merge sort that takes advantage of initial runs in the data while using insertion-sort to build additional runs. Tim-sort has been the standard sorting algorithm in Python since 2003, and it has become the default algorithm for sorting arrays of object types, as of Java SE 7.

  • A two-page analysis of Timsort in Disk-Based Algorithms for Big Data by Healey, "designed for senior undergraduate and graduate students, as well as professionals" ISBN 9781315302850, CRC Press 2016, Chapter 3.3, "Timsort":

    Timsort was proposed by Tim Peters in 2002. It was initially implemented as a standard sorting method in Python. It is now being offered as a built-in sorting method in environments like Android and Java.

RW Dutton (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage? Some (not all) of these Timsort-related mentions of Peters are fairly brief. Are they enough to be regarded as 'significant coverage'? Here I will point to something which Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Trivial_coverage claims is a (bad) example argument:
While WP:ATA is, it seems, not an English Wikipedia guideline, I think the argument is worth considering here. The "Multiway Powersort" paper credits Timsort (and thus Peters) with bringing strong adaptive sorting performance to widely-used standard libraries for the first time. [5] "Adaptive ShiversSort" even credits it with helping to revive interest in sorting research![6] We're not talking about the Three Blind Mice here. The academics also clearly see the fact that Timsort came from Peters, an industry guy, as an important piece of context. RW Dutton (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability in relation to Timsort (continued):
  • University lectures Peters has been mentioned a number of times in connection with Timsort in undergraduate CS lectures at major universities. Examples include:
RW Dutton (talk) 09:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one's tough but I'm leaning Keep. Peters's suspension from the Python community was covered in LWN (as mentioned above) and in The Register. This meets the coverage requirements for notability. WP: BLP1E doesn't apply here because he is not a low-profile individual, as evidenced by his creation of Timsort and Zen of Python. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "And here's a little comment, um, just from ... well yeah, Tim Peters himself put the code together in the end, and decided after ... He got very interested in playing with this, and experimenting with different options, and at the end, ah, settled for this one." At this point Wild's slides show, in one corner, a picture of an email from Peters announcing his acceptance of the Powersort modificiations
  2. ^ "Now, so far it sounds a little similar to bottom-up Mergesort, but remember in bottom-up Mergesort we use the queue, and we always paired up things as they arrived in the same order, and always pairs all the way back. And this really didn't work so well, which is something that Tim Peters realised, so instead he uses a different way. So he puts the runs on the stack, so the topmost is the most recent that you just discovered. And then there's the set of rules that tells you want to do. And I think these rules are still somewhat magic, that they work, at all. We'll see that they don't always work that great, indeed. But that's something that was just discovered a few years ago. And yeah, in Tim Peters' own words, these rules were the first thing he discovered that didn't obviously suck, so he stuck with them, but they're indeed not the most thoughtful part of Timsort."
  3. ^ "Why exactly these rules? Well! Tim even publicly confessed, so I'm just citing the bugtracker here, that he didn't spend so much time working on, working on those: it was the first thing that kind of worked, and he decided to stick with it, until ... unless there was a good reason not to, and at the time there was no good reason not to. Unfortunately there is a good reason not to."
  4. ^ "Just as an aside, 'Timsort' was—the name started as an inside joke among the core developers, and wasn't really Tim's choice. But yeah, it's got ... it stuck, and once the algorithm was exported to other libraries, it became known by that, so, ah ... be careful with choosing your names. I tried to give a name before I published the algorithm, so that this is off the plate."
  5. ^ "Again, Timsort did pioneering work in bringing such adaptive sorting to most modern standard libraries (including Python, Java, Android runtimes, the V8 Javascript engine, Rust, Swift, Apache Spark, Octave, and the NCBI C++ Toolkit), giving users linear complexity for sufficiently sorted inputs."
  6. ^ "Hence, the prominence of such a custom-made algorithm over previously preferred optimal algorithms contributed to the regain of interest in the study of sorting algorithms"
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan–Soviet air confrontations

[edit]
Pakistan–Soviet air confrontations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fancruft written with poor sources and is full of WP:OR. The creator of the article was indeffed long ago for copyright violations[62]. Nxcrypto Message 09:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs significant rewriting but is very likely notable.
Noah 💬 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write: Most of the articles created by M Waleed are used for nationalist edits on TikTok where they essentially screenshot the info boxes of certain battles or wars to one-up other people. I have had to edit numerous of his articles before last year, as they contained inaccurate information or complete fabrications that did not align with the source material. A lot of his articles relating to Pakistani-Afghan relations also coincidentally omit the deaths of Pakistani civilians during attacks launched by KHAD or the Afghan Armed Forces, with only the deaths of Afghan refugees being taken from the sources and placed into the article. The sources in this specific article do not cite any sort of Pakistani victory, and the creator of the article has used “defense.pk” as a source, despite it being a Pakistani community website aimed at being a military forum for Pakistani’s interested in their country’s own strategic or military affairs.
However, it wouldn’t be a bad thing if the article in itself was re-written to reflect a more neutral standpoint and to portray it as a series of incidents with no victor. The article is still full of worthy amounts of information detailing aerial confrontations between the USSR, Afghanistan and Pakistan. AfghanParatrooper19891 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Sharma (politician)

[edit]
Shyam Sharma (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Political candidate who fails WP:NPOL as he has only held local office. JTtheOG (talk) 09:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mayor of South Delhi though a local office but governs a larger area than most if not all Delhi Legislative Assembly members, mayors of big cities are generally assumed notable. Xoocit (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not candidate, but elected official of major city. Mayors of mega-cities, as has mentioned above, are generally assumed notable per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES. Djflem (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • POLOUTCOMES is an essay, neither policy, nor guideline. It also says: Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville" This article is just that. The subject has not received any more coverage than any other incumbent/ex mayor or MLA/MP candidate. Nothing special to make him notable. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
POLOUTCOMES clarifies precedents and a points of view of many participants in AFD discussions, establishing a preference for Wikipedia users and editors for these types of articles and has been written by many of them, so it's not single author essay by any means.Djflem (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zoop India

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Zoop India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP as no sources can be identified beyond WP:CORPTRIV or recycled press releases. Moreover, this article is nearly identical to the one that was deleted after a deletion discussion last year. The creator of that article was blocked as a spammer, and this could be the same individual, given the similarities to the deleted version. Yuvaank (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn based on new sourcing. FOARP (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Biddulph

[edit]
Norman Biddulph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS Only cites are passing-mentions in an all-encompassing database and a two-sentence mention in an article of dubious independence in a local newspaper ("After the race the runners and friends sat down to tea provided by the well-known ex-Northern steeplechase champion, Norman Biddulph, who is now mine host at the Royal Oak Hotel. Biddulph won the 1/2 and 1 mile at Bolton Borough Police Sports at Bromwich-st. a year or two ago, and represented England in the Olympic Games of 1928 at Amsterdam"). FOARP (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Olympedia (which is actually not a wiki but a reliable reference work by historian Bill Mallon) has five sentences of high-quality prose on the subject. Olympedia is only a database in the same sense that The New York Times is a database, i.e. you can sort and search for biographies but the prose is what matters. It's not all-encompassing -- there's editorial discretion because not all entries have copy as thorough as that of the subject.
The subject also actually does meet NSPORTS, specifically WP:NATH prong 7 for being 8th in the world in the steeplechase in 1928. I improved the article with some other references like "ANOTHER YORKSHIRE RUNNER" and "ATHLETICS. WIDNES POLICE SPORTS. OBJECTION TO BIDDULPH'S ENTRY." --Habst (talk) 15:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After the Frank English case I'm not so sure the text on Olympedia is fact-checked. However, I'll look over the additional sources. FOARP (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Habst - I genuinely think these sources are very borderline for significant coverage (in each one it amounts to a paragraph or less of actual coverage), but personally I tend to at least give these things a chance if you can actually write something meaningful that is sourced about the subject based on it (and you just about can). For that reason happy to withdraw. FOARP (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lower Bar, Shropshire

[edit]
Lower Bar, Shropshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is there anything Notable about this street? The first and second sources don't appear to support the content. The remainder have absolutely minimal mention of Lower Bar, if at all. The History section is very poorly-written and appears to say nothing Notable. It could be Merged into the High Street section of the Newport, Shropshire article, but I am struggling to find any content worth merging. KJP1 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Story Makers. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cow (cartoon)

[edit]
Blue Cow (cartoon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a cow from a children's show. There doesn't appear to be any reliable sourcing about this character really. GamerPro64 07:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government procurement in Poland

[edit]
Government procurement in Poland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Links to only one article. Text has not been significantly updated since the page was first made. No proof that the article falls under WP:SIGCOV; no sources are listed on the article, and even Polish Wikipedia has only one secondary source. I would additionally argue that the article falls under WP:A1. Mupper-san (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT as the least-bad option where every option sucks. Looking at the common outcomes of AfDs:
  • The article obviously can't be kept in its current form
  • The article doesn't qualify for WP:A1 by my reading of that policy; it's at least possible to tell by reading the article what it is about
  • The article also doesn't obviously meet any of the reasons for deletion; in particular, I have a hard time believing the subject isn't notable or that reliable sources don't exist considering it's an important matter of policy concerning a national government.
  • The article could be merged or redirected, but I don't see anything in Category:Government of Poland that jumps out at me as a useful redirect target, i.e. one that would actually cause wiki readers to be redirected to a page with content they're looking for. Also, I'm not convinced that any of the existing content would survive a merge.
  • Finally, considering the page history draftifying would be a way to delete the article with extra steps per WP:G13.
Unfortunately, the article has existed more or less in its current state since 2013; I think the least-bad option is to redlink it in the hopes that an editor shows up at some point with the necessary expertise (or at least ability to read Polish sources) to write a decent article in its place. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Millheiser

[edit]
Stuart Millheiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies primarily on primary, self-published, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 06:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Become the Other

[edit]
Become the Other (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Studio album which does not make the case for notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not make the case for notability? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DanielTheMusicMaster Is this a vote? If so, please update your comment with a vote like Delete, Weak delete, Neutral, Weak keep, or Keep. If it is not, please add Comment or {{Comment}} which produces the following:
 Comment:
Hope this makes sense! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think I understand now. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the album warrants an article, seeing as how it was included on the Official Charts. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not strong arguments for Deleting or Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if the article did place high on some sort of chart, then I suppose there's a reason to keep it? But, I did get a whiff of WP:GARAGE. Not enough to warrant a delete vote, but still. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor's Too Far Away

[edit]
The Floor's Too Far Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable studio album; does not make the case for inclusion with listed sources; could be merged in band's page in part. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not make sense? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, typed a little fast there. What I meant to say was: Why does it not make the case? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album has been mentioned in official publications. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not strong arguments to Keep or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see a good reason to keep this. Album didnt hit any sort of charts or top hits, all the sources at a quick glance seem to just be either reviews on websites I don't know the reliability on, or just sites listing the tracks, with user-generated reviews.
Madeline1805 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Meehan

[edit]
George Meehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources (other than Blottner) mention the subject in anything but credit lists. This does not constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add those here. The only source used which has him in anything beyond a credits list is the Blottner source; but those comments are sparse and perfunctory and do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please provide evidence of sources with in-depth coverage. None of the materials address biographical content like dates of birth or death. An encyclopedia entry (if one can be found) would go a long way to proving notability for example. Even an obituary (as long as its not a paid for one) would be useful to help meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a reference. References are in the article. Sources are out there. This particular reference was removed by someone and just re-added by me. I saw maybe 10-20 sources that mention the cinematographer. He probably passes CREATIVE #2 for being extremely prolific. Texts often say something about the job he did. There is an anecdote in a book about a fellow cinematographer who he trained. There might be more in the newspapers. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument which is listed as a discredited argument at AFD. You must produce specific sources here with specific details (preferably url links but offline sources with title, author, date, publisher, and page number work too), and not make vague unsubstantiated claims.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not WP:SOURCESEXIST at all as I do not say that SIGCOV exists, only that I'll look further. That's anyone's prerogative. Please note that thus far I have only commented so all these frames are totally irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD needs additional participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. WP:CREATIVE does not require secondary biographical SIGCOV. What needs to be established is that he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. I would say that a cinematographer plays a "major role" in the creation of a film, and as a prolific cinematographer who worked on a large number of significant films I think he clears that bar. I also would not be at all surprised if WP:GNG coverage exists and is just difficult to find, but I don't think it's necessary given that he passes WP:CREATIVE. MCE89 (talk) 07:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I too think he meets WP:CREATIVE with his work as cinematographer on numerous notable and very notable films. -Mushy Yank. 23:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article passes CREATIVE #3: The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Another important fact to keep in mind is that Meehan died in 1947, so there is absolutely no BLP concern.
When the nominator found the article, its three references that were not listings had been hidden by another user. While they could have noticed this, unfortunately, they did not. You would think differently by reading the intro, however, as it had been changed after the fact. The BEFORE of nom defies the golden NEXIST rule as they only analyzed what was in the article at that time.
Back to the hidden references. Two of the three hidden footnotes were hidden with some justification, the other without any justification at all. In my BEFORE search, sufficient sources were found to assemble a strong article. My search followed NEXIST and was totally not as framed above. I found 10–20 sources in total that were not just listings, and I have only added a fraction of these new sources to the article. I also re-added the reference that was improperly removed. gidonb (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz

[edit]
Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely on primary and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Connell (racehorse trainer)

[edit]
Richard O'Connell (racehorse trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited sources either don't mention the subject at all or only in passing. They don't verify the content in the article. Perhaps there was link rot of some kind? Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pustilnik

[edit]
Michael Pustilnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relies entirely on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this discussion as Keep after reviewing the arguments but also the article which has undergone a lot of editing since it was nominated from several editors. It seems like there is a substantial effort to update this article which will hopefully address concerns from those editors seeking Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sofie Madsen

[edit]
Anne Sofie Madsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:
So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. SilverserenC 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. SilverserenC 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. SilverserenC 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Deletion would be an option if she was borderline notable or the article was a hit job, but neither case applies here. The notability seems pretty clear, and the article isn't negative either. If an article about a notable subject is deleted, someone else will eventually come along and write another article. Improvement is really the best past forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She is a notable fashion designer and has coverage in reliable sources such as Vogue. Moopaz (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Fashion deigner covered by Vogue and other sources listed above. I added the "Update" template to the top of the article, saying "Please help update this article to reflect recent events ..." So, if "potential employers google her" and find this article, they will be greeted with a note making clear the article does not reflect recent events. I hope that helps. Asparagusstar (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: before I would go along with a keep, I would like to see the sources found incorporated into this article. This is my personal opinion, and I've raised it before in other AfDs. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors and if you have found sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I had a very quick look on The Guardian newspaper website and found two places where she's named alongside far more famous designers. I've added them to the article. She's mentioned in a textbook, admittedly only a photo of an example of her work, but the author must have considered her worth including – Udale, J. (2023). Textiles and fashion : from fabric construction to surface treatments (Third ed.). Bloomsbury Visual Arts. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seams to be another person. 87.49.43.175 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's 2 photos and an interview, over 2 pages. It seems to be the Anne Sofie Madsen that this article is about, with the same education, work experience and brand name. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: I have been in touch with the subject by email. She has made a very strong plea for the article to be deleted as although the details are based on reliable sources, some of them are incorrect. She does not have the time or experience to look for sources which paint a more correct picture of her life. As the article is having a negative effect on her current aspirations, she deserves to have it deleted.--Ipigott (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that in line with wikipedia policy? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Anachronist said, she is notable and the article is neither negative nor gushing. If this article is deleted, someone will create another one. I don't understand how a few details in this article could be "having a negative effect on her current aspirations" - surely she has a portfolio to show potential employers? Yes, the article doesn't cover anything in the last 7 years, and not much for the last 10 years, but Wikipedia articles are not meant to be CVs. Hopefully the "Update" template added by Asparagusstar will help potential employers understand that just because the article doesn't cover the last 7-10 years doesn't mean she achieved nothing in that time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost everything in the article is incorrect. The Universities do not exist. She graduated with an MA from The Royal Danish Academy of fine arts. Look at the schools website. But 3 other schools are mentioned. It looks like they do not exist. The Sources are wrongly quoted and most of the quotes dosen't even match with the article mentioned. 87.49.43.175 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The magazine sources used in the article do seem to match the summarized information. Did you read them? Are you arguing that the magazines printed incorrect information? SilverserenC 22:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is so many mistakes. In 2007 she is living in Paris - says one line. But in the following she is living in London in 2007.
    And yes I checked the articles. Some of the quotes is no where to be found in the article referred to.
    The schools mentioned does not match with any schools. But in the article #5 it is mentioned she graduated from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts with an MA. This is actually the only school that really exists. 87.49.43.175 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, this source used in the article states:
Over the years, Anne Sofie Madsen has created illustrations for both magazines and children's and young adult books, and as recently as 2005 she was a visiting student on the animation program at the Film School.
Along with:
She started at the School of Design in 2002 and was able to earn her bachelor's degree in clothing three years later.
“When I applied to the School of Design, I couldn't even use a sewing machine. I thought they looked a bit dangerous. and was surprised by how much sewing technique my classmates knew compared to me,” she says.
Therefore, the sources do cover the schools mentioned in the articles in addition to the MA at the Royal Danish Academy. SilverserenC 22:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the timeline thing does appear to be a source error though, just by virtue of one mis-placed word. The source reads:
The designer really gained a deeper understanding of the craft when she moved to Paris in 2006 to do an internship. Anne Sofie Madsen spent the first few months at the trend research agency Peclers, which publishes trend books every year with colors and materials that will shape fashion in the years to come.
The aspiring fashion designer acquired strong research skills at Peclers before switching to an internship at John Galliano – one of Anne Sofie Madsen’s great fashion heroes – in the winter of 2007. She stayed there until May of that year, when she returned to Denmark to complete her master’s degree at the Danish School of Design.
I presume it meant May of 2008, the following year. Since that makes much more sense. SilverserenC 22:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the text, and added another source. I have avoided specific dates and said "Before finishing her master's degree, Madsen was offered a job as a junior designer with the London-based designer Alexander McQueen. She spent a year in London, then returned to Denmark. She graduated from the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts with a master's degree in 2009." Perhaps that will avoid inaccuracies but still reflect the info in the sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello 87.49.43.175, the first university named in the article is the Danish Design School. It is blue, which means there is a link to another Wikipedia article. If you click on it, it takes you to the article Danmarks Designskole, that starts: "The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Design, more commonly known as the Danish Design School (Danish: Danmarks Designskole. often abbreviated as DKDS)". So there are different names for one university, and different names used for it in this article. That could be confusing, but it is not wrong. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you close to the subject of the article? Your IP has only contributed to the article in question and this discussion. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see there are sources for years not yet covered in the article. In an interview, Madsen says that she has had 8 books published since 2011 - they are not mentioned in the article yet either. These are not reasons to delete the article, though, they are reasons to improve and expand it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve found some on WorldCat. They date from 2011-2014 which certainly isn’t a problem in itself, but doesn’t help identify more recent sources.
    • Frederiksen, Sara Ejersbo (2012). Zombiekatten. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763822312.
    • Grønlund, Peter (2013). Hr. Wisborgs hemmelighed. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763826532.
    • Skaarup, Sara (2011). Helvedes hund og andre gys. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763816458.
    • Grønlund, Peter (2014). I skolens kælder. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Forum, Kbh. ISBN 9788763831635.
    • Grønbæk. Pors, Justine (2014). Støjende styring : genopfindelsen af folkeskolen mellem ledelse, organisering og læring. Madsen, Anne Sofie (Illustrator). Frederiksberg: Nyt fra Samfundsvidenskaberne. ISBN 9788776830472.
    I’ll leave them here but maybe copy to the article or talkpage at some point? - -Northernhenge (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Ipigott. Gedaali (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I'm unsure what to do here. We have two editors who strongly feel this article should be deleted as this is stated to be the article subject's wishes. But we have a larger group of editors who argue that this article should be Kept and are willing to work to improve the article's sourcing. I'll relist it for another week and see if we get a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: notability is not temporary, and she was clearly notable in the 2010s. No-one has found any recent sources about her (I thought I had... until I realised Udale's 2023 book was 3rd ed of a 2014 book), and obviously if any current sources are found, editors would be happy to add them. She may now be building a career in some totally different field (a wild guess on the basis of what has been said about her emails), but her career in fashion remains notable and encyclopedia-worthy. And there's nothing in the article which is a negative, no controversies or scandals, no intrusive details about her private life, just a career. Or perhaps two, with the book illustration. PamD 08:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the four more recent refs which @Silver seren found and listed above, to provide some updates. PamD 08:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Hygiene Industries

[edit]
Midas Hygiene Industries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing SIGCOV or where this meets NCORP but someone more familiar with Indian sources might have an easier time. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baidyapur Ramkrishna Vidyapith

[edit]
Baidyapur Ramkrishna Vidyapith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. I am tagging it after getting informed from another AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Balurghat_Lalit_Mohan_Adarsha_Uchchya_Vidyalaya, including a list of other schools that fail the same criteria. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Begri Girls High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Aligunj Rishi Raj Narayan Balika Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bhogpur K. M. High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Birsingha Bhagabati Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Burdwan C.M.S High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chakdwipa High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charghat Milan Mandir Vidyapith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Deshabandhu Vidyalaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Digha Vidyabhawan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 05:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Noting that a promotional article about a notable subject should rather be cleaned up and not deleted. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto

[edit]
Ana Candiotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 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! 20:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kioumars Pourhashemi

[edit]
Kioumars Pourhashemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be that important. All references are in passing or about his death, probably can be mentioned as a section in 2024 Battle of Aleppo Ladsgroupoverleg 17:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I made this article because I believe he was an important figure in a very important event that led to the downfall of Syria. History is important. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(?) Quoting from this page: "Researchers Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss argued that Pourhashemi's death -along with a number of other senior officers- greatly contributed to the collapse of the loyalist defenses of Aleppo." Sounds like a credible claim to lasting significance, though it depends on how much is being carried by the "other senior officers". Koopinator (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Hurt

[edit]
Lukáš Hurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography of a trade journalist and cannabis activist fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article (and found in WP:BEFORE) are either WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, non-independent, or database sources. He also fails to qualify under any criterion of WP:NCHESS. (Translated from cz-wiki and no comment on notability standards there, but this falls short for en-wiki.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shuvalov

[edit]
Shuvalov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:GUNREL (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility#genealogy.eu), WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Shuvalov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Romodanovsky family

[edit]
Romodanovsky family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Romodanovsky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous representative of this family was of course Fyodor Romodanovsky, "a monstrum by appearance, a vicious tyrant by character". He liked personally beheading people, sometimes several in a row. My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. postdlf (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obolensky

[edit]
Obolensky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). WP:UNSOURCED WP:OR, fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Obolensky family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The current "keep" arguments are rather weak: just being a noble family is not enough for notability, we need multiple independent sources that treat the subject in-depth. A listing is not enough. Perhaps the articles in other languages provide some useful sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Consensus to keep seems clear, and the nominator has also accepted that there are sources establishing WP:GNG.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Vaughn Blake

[edit]
John Vaughn Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, and discovering the name was misspelled. That error obviously impacted my earlier search for references.4meter4 (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject clearly passes GNG. Wide coverage of his college football career both as a player and coach. The correct spelling of his last name appears to be "Vaughn" and common name "Vaughn Blake". Jweiss11 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
US Census and military draft registration data agrees that its "Vaughn" and not "Vaughan" if that helps. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His gravestone also says "Vaughn"; see https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/74191110/john-vaughn-blake. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jweiss11 and the sources provided by ~WikiOriginal-9~ and move to John Vaughn Blake or Vaughn Blake, whichever is the consensus, as that was his name. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the subject's common name is "Vaughn Blake". Jweiss11 (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Anglican Church of North America

[edit]
Conservative Anglican Church of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find no evidence that this organization passes WP:GNG or ever did. Its website is inactive, but archived versions ([73], [74]) have no listing of member congregations, and it appears that if it ever did have congregations they must have been very few. It is not mentioned in the two standard reference works on American Christian denominations (Kurian & Lamport or Melton, and Melton includes even the very smallest denominations). There is a single mention of it in a New York Times article about a church it supposedly recognized in Venezuela. It existed, that much is true, but beyond that anything that can be said about it fails WP:V. It doesn't reach GNG and it doesn't even reach the looser threshold described at WP:RELIGIONOUTCOMES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to SixDegrees.com. ✗plicit 00:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Weinreich

[edit]
Andrew Weinreich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the articles are directly about the subject. Coverage is trivial. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage
Firecat (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. It looks like sources have been located and any "cruftiness" can be resolved through editing. Liz Read! Talk! 07:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helicarrier

[edit]
Helicarrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references are listicles that are either unreliable or not significant outside of discussions of Marvel and [S.H.I.E.L.D.]]. This could be redirected to S.H.I.E.L.D. with any passing mentions in sources that can be salvaged. Jontesta (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. it doesn't help that a valid deletion rationale was not provided. Liz Read! Talk! 07:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moog Model 15

[edit]
Moog Model 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an advertizing tool. Information about this app can live as one line in the Moog wikipedia page and doesn't need a dedicated page. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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