Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 03	January 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Westballz

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

Top esports player who lacks significant coverage to prove notability. The profiles from Red Bull and ESPN are a good start, but the rest are either web articles of questionable reliability or independence (theScore eSports, EventHubs, G2 Esports) or routine coverage of changes in teams / sponsorships. Bridget (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and California. Bridget (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These two ESPN sources [1], [2], the Red Bull source [3], as well as published unauthorized biography [4] probably pushes the subject over the edge in terms of notability. 14:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Pbrks, were you able to find more info about the book or its author and publisher? The lack of info makes it look a bit suspect, and the blurb isn't too useful. Bridget (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG per above, this pretty clearly gets the article over the line.

Noah ^💬 23:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Ferrari

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

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

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

Lucia Arrascaeta

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentinian rhythmic gymnast. Article was previously draftified in June. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject is barely mentioned in any of the sources listed. I also did some quick research, hoping to find something useful, but I haven't found anything. Aona1212 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Vetricean

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

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

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

List of engineering programs in the California State University

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, Lists, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Even if the topic were notable (which it doesn't appear to be), this isn't encyclopedic content. Robminchin (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is essentially a very high-quality WP:CATALOG, but a search for inherent notability behind CSU's engineering programs yields little to nothing other than just the programs themselves. Ranking websites, CSU sublinks, etc. don't justify notability, and those are just about the only things covering this subject. GuardianH (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a university enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that the format is non-standard and actually annoying, but my reason for deletion is that this does not meet notability for a list article. Specifically, there are no independent or secondary sources that discuss this group, nor can I find one with a quick search. In Wikipedia, list articles have this very specific threshold for notability. Rublamb (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. This is a clear case of WP:NOT and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other articles like this for other university systems. Conyo14 (talk) 05:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll

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

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

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

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

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

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Morse, Steve (1998-03-31). "VH1's Top 100 Choices Don't Rock". The Boston Globe. Factiva bstngb0020010915du3v00cpl. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Picking a Top 100 in any field is hard, but it's especially hard in rock 'n' roll, which is prey to all manner of whims and prejudices. That didn't stop cable channel VH1 from trying -- and this time it didn't poll critics or fans. It polled 600 artists, who collectively chose the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Bob Dylan as the Top 5. Those names probably come as no surprise, but there will surely be smirks at some of the other 95 acts on the list unveiled on VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Rock &Roll." The show premieres tonight from 10 to 11, followed by additional one-hour segments at the same hour each night through Saturday. ... As a parlor game, it's fun to discuss the results. But the list could have been better, and so could the show, which succumbs to numbing repetition and is undone by Bacon's goofy rah-rah attitude and by an insipid female voice-over. Each winner is represented by video footage you've probably seen many times before and sometimes by self-serving concert clips from the VH1 archives. These are the "100 Greatest Artists" in a narrowed universe."
2. Farber, Jim (1998-03-29). "Fab 4 Top 100 List". New York Daily News. Factiva nydn000020010918du3t006hj.
  The article notes: "Wanna start an argument? Name the 100 greatest music artists of all time in order.VH1 just dared to, basing its choices not on in-house opinions, nor on those of critics, but on the picks of current artists themselves.From Tuesday through Saturday (at 10 p.m.), the music channel will run five hour-long segments counting down the "100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll" in groups of 20. The installments center around archival footage of the musicians and feature quotes from those they influenced. ... The results include some surprises. The top three 1) The Beatles, 2) The Rolling Stones and 3) Jimi Hendrix deserve comment only in that the third slot isn't occupied by Bob Dylan, who instead landed at No. 5. ... Even so, perhaps the most jaw-dropping choice is The Police at No. 10, above Ray Charles (No. 12), Marvin Gaye (No. 14) and Aretha Franklin (No. 21). However much juice this defunct band commands, they hardly rate Top Ten status in terms of innovation or depth."
3. Gieske, Tony (1998-03-21). "VH1 Presents the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 351, no. 47. pp. 20, 133. ProQuest 2393629738.
  The article notes: "Six hundred musicians from the VH1 "roll and Rollodex" voted up a list of the 100 all-time all-frantic ones, and tonight the bottom 20 are stitched into a kind of rock quilt, the first of five tumultuous sections. The list runs from bottom to top, Letterman-style. ... Fats Domino gets to do "Blueberry Hill" all the way through, with only a few adulatory interruptions, but he's one of the few who is permitted a whole number. And so it goes in this high-speed panorama. The songs, the artists and the commentary are perforce familiar if not banal, so it's all in the editing, which is fortunately first-rate in the Jet Ski style for which MTV is famous. Jet Ski or Osterizer. We're talking jarring juxtapositions like Robert Johnson and Diana Ross, Carole King and Madonna, Johnny Cash and the Ramones. In the second chunk, to be heard Wednesday, John Coltrane wins the posthumous title of honorary rocker, and Miles Davis gets in there eventually."
4. Hay, Carla (1998-03-21). "VH1 polls artists on rock's greats". Billboard. Vol. 110, no. 12. pp. 10, 110. ProQuest 227110870. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Amid the seemingly endless parade of awards shows and "best of" lists, VH1 has produced a unique music survey naming "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll." The acts included in the survey weren't chosen by critics or VH1 staffers but by other music acts. The survey results will be revealed in a countdown that premieres March 31-April 4 on VH1, and labels and retailers are already anticipating a sales boost for some of the acts as a result. ... The majority of those named in "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll" are artists who made their marks well before the dawn of MTV. Although consistent favorites Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and the Rolling Stones predictably have made the top 10, the survey also yields results that may be surprising to some people. David Bowie is ranked higher than Presley, and the Police are the only post-punk/MTV-era act ranked in the top 10. In addition, some acts who don't fall neatly into the rock category are on the list, including Bob Marley, Johnny Cash, Aretha Franklin, and John Coltrane."
5. Piccoli, Sean (1998-04-03). "Business as Usual: Irrepressible Punk Rage". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "Rating the greats Off the subject of polemics _ but not too far off _ my always outrage-able Sun-Sentinel colleague, television critic Tom Jicha, spotted the music cable channel VH1 picking a fight of another sort this week: the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll video-thon. VH1 says its 100 Greatest were selected through a mailing to more than 600 rock 'n' roll musicians. Not all results are surprising: The Top 10 includes the Beatles (1), Jimi Hendrix (3), Bob Dylan (5) and James Brown (6). But it gets interesting. Positing Dylan as a runner-up to Hendrix, in fact, may be the least argumentative of the rock panel's picks. ... The five-part series concludes with a pair of one-hour broadcasts, 10 tonight and Saturday, hailing the final 40 contenders through interviews, concert footage and video clips."
6. Hesse, Monica (2007-09-29). "On Cable, Shows That Count Down To the Lowest Common Denominator". The Washington Post. ProQuest 2827611958. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "A decade ago, Jeff Gaspin, VH1's new vice president of programming, suggested that the channel do a countdown show -- a Casey Kasem-y thing with musicians, not critics, picking the rankings. In 1998, VH1 premiered "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll": a five-part series going from No. 100 Paul Simon to the list-topping Beatles, with everyone from Nirvana (No. 42) to Gladys Knight & the Pips (91) in between. So many artists. So much anticipation. So much Kevin Bacon, who hosted."
7. Ivry, Bob (1998-04-25). "Poll Takes the Pulse of Rock's Greatest Acts". The Record. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "lanagan sent ballots to hundreds of musicians, asking them to put together their entire Top 100 "greatest artists" list no more specific than that and received more than 100 back. ... Another sign that a new generation of rockers voted in the poll is the low position of the King of Rock-and-Roll Elvis could muster only a No. 8 ranking. ... Another mild surprise is the dearth of female artists in the top spots, especially in the era of Lilith Fair and boom times for women singer-songwriters like Jewel, Shawn Colvin, and Sarah McLachlan. Aretha Franklin was the top woman, at No. 21, and Joni Mitchell, another idol of all three of the aforementioned singers, was second in the women's category, at No. 32."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability has been shown. This can be considered withdrawn if MWFwiki changes their vote to keep. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn MWFwiki (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Style Design College

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

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

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

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

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

5P Global Movement

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

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

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

Kingsley Kobayashi

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

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

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

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

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

EBC Group

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet NCORP. --BoraVoro (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see one single reliable source, Yahoo Finance. If you eliminated the weasel words and stubify it, then you would be left with nothing but original research. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo Finance source is syndicated content, not their own. It was originally from https://www.retailbankerinternational.com/news/ebc-financial-group-debuts-on-laliga-stage-with-fc-barcelona-partnership/?cf-view ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anine Bing Corp

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

Article seems to fail WP:ORG almost all of the sources are about the founder and only mentions the organization. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Companies. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see one big giant WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Miles In Transit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slaveco.

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

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:

Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing sources in the article, particularly the chapter Chris Walter's book, plus the following, are enough to establish notability per WP:GNG.

"Slaveco prepared to slay 'em". Nelson Daily News. 2004-04-22. p. 3. ProQuest 357444111.
PD (2004-04-15). "Mr. Pig stuff". Vue Weekly (443): 23.
Williams, Rob (2004-04-15). "Pig business: SNFU chief Chi branches out in Slaveco enterprise". The Winnipeg Sun. p. 61.

Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Database Management Library

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

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

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

Bharat Sundari

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

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

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

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

Ghazi Shahzad

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Crime, Law, Politics, Terrorism, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria (WP:ANYBIO / WP:NPOL. Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. This article is supposed to be WP:BLP. Note: Ghazi Shahzad is a little-known politician ... which question the notability of the article. QEnigma talk 17:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD occurs after User:SheriffIsInTown blanked the (sourced) article and then tried to delete it under WP:BLPPROD claiming it was unsourced. The claim of being a "little-known politician" was also added by SheriffIsInTown just prior to initiating this AfD. Perhaps the result should be a delete but the discussion should not be based on SheriffIsInTown's prejudicial edits. See [5] for the article as it was before SheriffIsInTown started editing to make it worse and then use its badness as an excuse for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein Since when removing unsourced content from a BLP content considered "making it worse"? Anadolu source describes the individual as "a little known politician", would you prefer to keep the version which had a lot of unsourced content and rest a total misrepresentation of the sources. I blanked the article because it was a total WP:BLPVIO, I tried to PROD because I wanted to save every one a hassle of an AfD but you saw it as bad faith, really? Also, I have no issue if you want to take time to improve the article and properly source it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking a sourced article and then saying that because you blanked the sources it should be deleted for having no sources: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? Editing the first sentence of the article to directly say that the subject is non-notable, and then using that statement of non-notability as the basis for a deletion discussion: is that a good-faith attempt to determine whether the article is notable and should be improved or deleted? As I said, perhaps the article should be deleted. But your actions attempting to get it deleted make it appear that you have predetermined to delete it and are trying any way you can to ram it through, rather than allowing the community to make a fair decision. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein I should have adjusted the content according to the sources which I did after you removed the PROD tag, I made a mistake to blank it, I thought it was a good idea to do as the lede as well was not sourced and I saw it as a WP:BLPVIO, the presence of the sources within article does not mean that content is actually according to those sources but anyway I will shut up and allow the community to make a decision. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In English alone there seems to have been more than passing mentions of Shahzad since 2023: described as the head of Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir, widespread coverage of his gaol break in June 2024 [6], [7], [8], coverage of attempts to recapture him in November 2024. He was also a candidate in the 2021 Azad Kashmir legislative elections (which by itself is not an indicator of notability, yes, yes), but is likely to mean there's some local coverage of him in Urdu or Kashmiri. Appears to me there should be a merge/redirect AtD here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Procedural keep or Selectively merge and redirect from the last good version of this article. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tehreek-e-Azaadi Jammu and Kashmir using sourced information from the existing article also drawing on the sources mentioned by Goldsztajn. Suggest that {{R with possibilities}} should be used for the redirect as it seems that more sources might come to light so as to make the subject notable in their own right. SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most eaten meat in the world by countries and territories

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would this count as a source demonstrating the collation meets NLIST? [9]. I expect there are others. But I can't bring myself to !vote keep because it s semi plagiaristic to just take someone's collation and throw it on Wikipedia (surely the collation attractes database right or similar?), and because what we have here is unsourced and would have to be fully checked, and because it is horribly overlinked, containing almost no unwikilinked text. It's a list though, so meh, the list saviours will be along shortly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The total absence of sources is the most important objection to this article, but even if that were fixed (a huge undertaking) serious problems would remain. Would it deserve an article? Do the results have any general consequences? Moreover, without claiming any expertise in the matter, apart from living for significant periods and eating in several countries (UK, USA, Canada, Chile, France), I find some of the classifications very surprising. Athel cb (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing it to the list I found above, yes. Some big errors in it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something feels fundamentally unsound to me about placing countries into exclusive groups based on which one of a couple categories was higher than all others in that country. We'd never create a similar list based on the most common ethnicity or religion in a country, for example; even if meats don't (always) have the same implications, it's still hard to justify squashing a complex distribution - which doesn't even necessarily follow national boundaries! - down to a single choice for "most eaten". Omphalographer (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, fails WP:NLIST and WP:TRIVIA. The page mentioned above is not much more than an infographic, though it is at least sourced. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total original research and WP:TRIVIA. Ajf773 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's simply completely unsourced. --SimmeD (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources whatsoever and no explanation about why some particular meat is eaten somewhere. It's just an indiscriminate list that isn't even verifiable. JIP | Talk 22:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ajf773. (Greetings from Commons, where the images uploaded by this article's creator are also up for deletion.) The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Morrison

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and England. CNC (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in Norfolk Island

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

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

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

So Kataoka

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

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

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

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

List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Ivy League business schools

AfDs for this article:

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

There do not appear to be substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner; compare with List of M7 business schools which does appear to mirror an existing list of business schools. ElKevbo (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://fortune.com/education/articles/wharton-is-first-ivy-league-business-school-to-launch-a-hybrid-executive-mba-program/

https://execed.business.columbia.edu/about

https://www.inspirafutures.com/blog/ivy-league-business-schools

https://www.businessinsider.com/mba-jobs-search-consultancies-offers-business-school-careers-2023-11

https://greatcollegeadvice.com/admissions-expert-on-studying-business-in-the-ivy-league/

https://poetsandquants.com/2024/08/30/why-this-ivys-top-ranked-business-medical-schools-are-partnering-on-a-new-masters-degree/

https://www.highereddive.com/news/with-hbx-rebranding-harvard-puts-the-online-back-in-online-business-scho/545615/

https://poetsandquants.com/2022/01/17/10-business-schools-to-watch-in-2022/

https://www.essence.com/news/wharton-students-average-american-salary/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/21/entertainment/ciara-harvard-business-school-trnd/index.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-be-a-student-at-columbia-business-school-2012-6

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444180004578016233463881890

https://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/05/business/profile-at-wharton-theyre-practicing-what-they-teach.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1987/10/15/columbia-business-school-no-room-for-mr-chips/e9970a88-af8e-477a-a6e1-a64853202504/ 68.175.0.155 (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that nearly all of those sources are about individual schools and not the entire collection of schools, it would be helpful if you would explain to us how you think they inform this discussion. Please remember that this discussion is only about this list article, not the article about each school. ElKevbo (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I agree with the "keep" outcome of the three prior AfDs that this meets notability for a list article. At least five sources talk about Ivy League business schools as a group--not the best sources but usable. What I don't like is a list article that consists of only six items. I would not be upset if there were a way to merge this table into another article about the Ivey League colleges but I can't find a good option. The phrase Ivy League originally applied to a group of private schools but is now used as the name of a collegiate athletic conference (which is what the Ivy League article is about). Rublamb (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to be very critical of sources for this topic given the immense industry of consultants, tutors, and scammers who write about anything "Ivy League" solely to promote themselves and write without any depth, rigor, or interest. ElKevbo (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Ivy League Business School" has been broadly used in the cultural lexicon for several decades, as justified by the sources provided. It is a useful term for prospective students because it conveys value to employers and business professionals, who often associate significant prestige with an education from an "Ivy League Business School." This term commonly refers to institutions such as Harvard, Columbia, Penn, Cornell, Dartmouth, and others.

On the other hand, the term "M7 Business School" was coined in 2015 by the website Poets & Quants (source: Poets & Quants article). This website profits directly from admissions consulting firms that advertise on its platform. While admissions consulting firms have capitalized on the popularity of the "M7" designation, data shows that Ivy League Business Schools, on average, have higher starting salaries and lower acceptance rates compared to M7 schools.

If there is any concern about the validity of these terms, perhaps the article titled "List of M7 Business Schools," which was created within the past year, should be reconsidered for deletion. 68.175.0.155 (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need significant coverage of a topic from multiple, reliable, and (ideally) independent sources. Being "used broadly in the cultural lexicon" is not sufficient.

If you think a different article should also be nominated for deletion, you are welcome to nominate it. I agree that the sources for the M7 list are marginal at best and a deletion discussion could easily go either way. ElKevbo (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Culural lexicon is just one example. See previous discussion. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: I think this is the correct question to ask when evaluating this article. It would be worthwhile to evaluate the publishers of these sources. Although, there might be more reliable sources that have similar content. I'll see what I can find. Rublamb (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The issue here is the notability of the subject, rather than the quality or usefulness of the article. The subject lacks inherent notability and, as already pointed out, there are sources for business schools individually, but not collectively. There are hardly any articles talking about Ivy business schools as a whole, and so the widespread, independent secondary coverage usually required to justify notability isn't satisfied here. GuardianH (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply believing a topic is not notable is not justification to pretend that a subject doesn't exist. See previous thread. 86.62.29.102 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 2 through 5 discuss Ivy League business schools as a group, not just idividual schools. That meets notability for Wikipedia and for a list article which is the standard to apply to this AfD. We do not consider the usefulness of an article as part of a AfD as that is totally subjective. Rublamb (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This grouping appears to be based on inherited notability from the patent universities rather than being about the business schools themselves (which appears to be a key distinction between this and the M7 grouping). The articles discussing this group seem to reinforce this, being listicles of the business schools at Ivy League universities rather than substantial coverage. Robminchin (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. The Ivy league was established after many of the universities had established a business school. 86.62.29.106 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A cursory search of scholarship in academic publications about business indicates that conceiving of the business schools at Ivy League universities (or "Ivy League business schools") as a group is something that happens in reliable sources. Non-exhaustive examples follow:
- Ted Tapper and Ourania Filippakou, "The World‐class League Tables and the Sustaining of International Reputations in Higher Education", Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 31, no. 1 (2009): 55–66: In the United States it is the Ivy League business schools that provide the entry route into the inner sanctum of the key capitalist institutions
- Roland Deiser, Designing the Smart Organization: How Breakthrough Corporate Learning Initiatives Drive Strategic Change and Innovation (John Wiley & Sons, 2009): It is a colorful universe, which includes major players such as Ivy League business schools that provide top-notch executive education
- John Saunders, Veronica Wong, and Carolyne Saunders, "The Research Evaluation and Globalization of Business Research", British Journal of Management 22, no. 3 (September 2011): 401–419: For example, although the Ivy League business schools on America’s east coast are each hugely strong by world standards, they share resources across their marketing or finance PhD programmes.
- Catherine Paradeise, Jean-Claude Thoenig, Stéphanie Mignot-Gérard, Emilie Biland, Gaële Goastellec, and Aurélie Delemarle, "Relevance and Excellence in Higher Education Vocational Schools: Business Schools as Institutional Actors", in The Institutional Development of Business Schools, eds. Andrew M. Pettigrew, Eric Cornuel, and Ulrich Hommel (Oxford University Press, 2014): City has been very successful, mainly in finance. 98 per cent of its MBA graduates rapidly get a job, with salaries often higher than those of Ivy League business schools.
- Graeme Currie, Julie Davies, and Ewan Ferlie, "A Call for University-Based Business Schools to 'Lower Their Walls': Collaborating With Other Academic Departments in Pursuit of Social Value", Academy of Management Learning & Education 15, no. 4 (2016): 742–755: Ivy League business schools such as Harvard have advantages in terms of finance, facilities, and well-connected alumni to facilitate interesting collaborations.
- Peter Cappelli, Rocio Bonet, and Monika Hamori, "The Changing Ranks of Corporate Leaders", California Management Review 66, no. 2 (2024): 5–29: The Ivy League business schools, associated with higher social class in terms of the income and social status of their students, had a long head start on other MBA programs.

Non-academic reliable sources, like journalism, also group the Ivy League business schools, such as in these non-exhaustive examples:

- Natasha Singer and Duff Wilson, "Menopause, as Brought to You by Big Pharma", The New York Times, December 13, 2009: While Wyeth has faced periodic complaints about its blockbuster menopause drugs, the latest lawsuits have turned the company’s menopausal hormone franchise into the kind of case study dissected at Ivy League business schools.
- Eleanor Pringle, "Hotshot Wharton Professor Sees $34 Trillion Debt Triggering 2025 Meltdown as Mortgage Rates Spike Above 7%: 'It Could Derail the Next Administration'", Yahoo Finance March 3, 2024: Among the illustrious nameplates adorning the offices of Ivy League business schools is one Joao Gomes.

The business schools of Ivy League universities are also grouped together in nonfiction books published by major non-university presses (the following are non-exhaustive examples):

- Quinn Spitzer and Ron Evans, Heads, You Win! How the Best Companies Think—and How You Can Use Their Examples to Develop Critical Thinking Within Your Own Organization (Touchstone Books, 1999) Ivy League business schools are pitching techniques to "catch the new wave"
- Greg Farrell, Crash of the Titans: Greed, Hubris, the Fall of Merrill Lynch, and the Near-Collapse of Bank of America (Crown Publishing Group, 2010): Instead of hiring the best and brightest graduates of Ivy League business schools by waving the prospect of seven-figure and eight-figure pay backages, BofA preferred hiring aggressive young men and women from less prestigious schools, who were willing to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty on behalf of the bank, not for the promise of an obscene amount of money.
- Walt Bogdanich and Michael Forsythe, When McKinsey Comes to Town: The Hidden Influence of the World's Most Powerful Consulting Firm (Penguin Random House, 2023): Gary's labor force had little idea of what to expect from these highly paid consultants, some graduates of Ivy League business schools.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have a few degrees from one of these Ivies and I've literally never heard the phrase "Ivy League business school" so it is suspect for me right off the bat. I do think in most of the examples cites above, the references are passing, and are more about the university themselves than the specific schools. The article certainly might be useful, but it definitely isn't notable. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this comparison, should we also delete articles discussing Public Ivy, Ivy League Medical Schools, Ivy League Law Schools if one has never heard the term? Also useful but not notable given prior comments is false. 86.62.29.110 (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd certainly welcome those discussions. Public Ivy does seem to have more general notability. I think Ivy League law school, which is a term I've heard has probably the strongest case. Ivy Medical School might be a weaker keep, but yes let's have those discussions if we need to!

Again, the articles cited above seem like mere passing references to me. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't look at personal experience in determining notability, but rather rely on the nature and number of sources. In this case, there are a variety of sources that discuss Ivy League Business School; our job is to critically evaluate those sources. Furthermore, as a graduate of a Public Ivy, I suggest we would not have the phrase "Public Ivy" with first having "Ivy League" in common use. Rublamb (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But do the sources demonstrate real coverage or just a passing mention? To me what has been shared is just the latter, passing mentions, oh Ivy Leagues have business schools. Wonderful! Same flaw with the ACC business school article or the Big 10 business school article. You can draw a box around any group of items and call it a coherent group but at some level it is just made up if no one has ever heard it used before. This article is delving into the world of fantasy-land. Jjazz76 (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Wikipedia article on Ivy League business schools should be retained as it meets the platform’s notability criteria, including the requirement for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. While some advocate for deletion based on a perceived lack of collective coverage, historical discussions and decisions (AfDs) have consistently upheld the article’s value. Notably, all Ivy League MBA programs except the Yale School of Management were established prior to the Ivy League's founding in 1954. This historical fact underscores the longstanding academic presence and significance of these institutions, separate from the Ivy League athletic consortium. Although this might prompt a reassessment of including the Yale School of Management in this particular grouping, it does not justify the deletion of the article as a whole. These schools are internationally recognized as some of the most prestigious universities, contributing significantly to both academic and cultural frameworks. This recognition justifies the notability of a collective article, as it embodies a widely acknowledged grouping within both academic circles and broader societal perceptions, meeting Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.29.110 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC) Obvious LLM is obvious, struck 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, recent sources added do indeed provide "substantive reliable sources that group these schools together in this manner." 86.62.29.103 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a good list and it is notable (per all the reasons mentioned before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.0.155 (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This grouping seems to be highly referenced by multiple sources and is noteworthy. Simply not liking something for being notable is not justification for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.239.6.150 (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Striking another VPN vote, likely a sock 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brar

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

Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and India. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable singer, going viral isn't the level of notability we need. [10] is an interview. Source 3 in the article is a list of many people, not mostly about this person. I don't see enough for notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
going viral is a context, hitting the charts across multiple countries is notability as defined by the notability guidenlines for Wikipedia Music pages. Wikpedia Music Guidelines notability also defines the release by a major record label as the current case is. There are more sources added by other users as well. G4gurpreet (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source from The Times of India, but I'm not sure if it helps. Aona1212 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kerzner International

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexandra Ievleva

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all citations are stats pages and mentions, nothing significant. Shinadamina (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The corresponding Russian article has a few decent sources, such as [[11]] and [[12]]. We probably need to look a bit closer into sources from Russia here to determine if the subject is notable or not. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong keep. Why are you nominating/voting if you can't do a one-minute search?
Here: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. (The last one is about her as a coach and about Zahra Lari who she coaches.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Update. I found a short biography of hers and expanded the article a bit: [20]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walls

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Collinear gradients method

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Mathematics. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (1) individual detailed algorithms aren't wikipedia-notable based on a single primary reference; they need to be widely-used and discussed in secondary sources before they are appropriate subjects. So it's WP:TOOSOON at least. (2) we have a duty to our readers to write our articles in the style of an encyclopaedia, not in the style of a primary maths publication. The article is currently written in a way that gives no context, and is incomprehensible to anyone who isn't already a subject-expert. Elemimele (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a reference article, not an encyclopedia. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on a research paper cited only once by its own author. Setting aside the poor expository style, which could plausibly be fixed, this does not pass WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth independent (and preferably secondary) sources, such as textbook chapters about this method. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second source is software for demonstrating the method's features and comparing its effectiveness with many well-known methods. CalculatorOpt (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:GNG. I removed the second source to the rar with complied code that could be any malicious software. KylieTastic (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for falling very short of our standards about when a topic is article-worthy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Cannarozzo

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

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

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

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

Keep: While it would be nice if there were more sources, the sources uncovered by JTtheOG contain the needed coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC as they provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad this skater couldn't follow up that coverage with any meaningful results. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baynews9 is mostly an interview with very little independent coverage, and a local ice show is not significant. The notability is far below that of a local principal, chief firefighter or physician. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keitaro Koga

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

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

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

Hiroya Iwakabe

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

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

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

Tomoki Kamioka

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

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

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

Fatima Kome

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mixin Network

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Nobitex

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

Only passing mentions of the subject with little or absent deep media coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. Not enough notability, remove. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. If you remove all the poorly or unsourced content, then we would be left with the critical reporting by Reuters. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a very prominent business within the crypto world, The article needs expended with more references. -- Guiy de Montfort de L'Amaury 10:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BitFlyer

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

Bloomberg and other kind of good sources have only passing mentions of the subject. The available coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Finmagnets and other sources are press releases mainly. 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japan crypto exchange bitFlyer to be sold to Asian investment fund from Nikkei. IgelRM (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Back in 2020-2021 I edited this page because an editor with a COI requested it, and I think that an uninvolved editor should check out such edits rather than forcing them COI editor to either break our rules or not contribute. In this case, the suggested changes were an improvement, so I made the change. Better does not mean good, and much more needs to be done to make this a good article. What I am not seeing is any evidence of notability; just press releases and other attempts to promote the business. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would repeat my frequent request that nominators of Japanese-language articles show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes sources in Japanese and competence to evaluate them, but in this case, it seems no WP:BEFORE or review of the Japanese Wikipedia article was done at all? In addition to the blurb in Nikkei Asia provided by User:IgelRM above, there is an article in CNBC, one about issuing Japan's first crypto credit card, coverage from The Nikkei [21] [22] [23], and lots of coverage in tech and crypto media. All of this is linked from the Japanese Wikipedia article and show clear evidence that BitFlyer is notable. DCsansei (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again concur with @DCsansei that there are plenty of Japanese sources, and that it would be great if nominations of Japanese articles showed evidence of WP:BEFORE using a simple Japanese google search. Even then though, I’m confused how the sources already given in this article by the WSJ etc could be considered passing mentions when they directly refer to the company and its activities. I find this nomination unusually confusing.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: Bloomberg is no longer as reliable as it used to be. Bearian (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s only true of straight company profiles as opposed to reported pieces though no? Or am I reading the perennial sources list wrong? this article also has multiple sources from Business Insider, WSJ, Financial Times too though. Even 2-3 of those would satisfy notability, let alone 7-8 plus all Japanese sources. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bitso

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

An article on a crypto-exchange company, created in a promotional way in a promo tone, with most references only passing mentioning the subject. The available coverage is insufficient to meet WP:CORPDEPTH 89KimberlyRoad (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Just looking at the sources, it has significant coverage. I'm genuinely unsure whether this can be fixed or not. Bearian (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ramzan Ali Miya

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

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

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

Ryan S Sultan

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

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

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

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

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

List of economics films

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

List has been unsourced since 2011 (the two sources say nothing about a set of economics films) and I am unable to find real-world lists of such films. This is just a hodge-podge list of POV additions of what "feels" right. This does not preclude other more precise list scopes like stock-market films and/or films related to the Great Recession. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Economics, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Economics. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SPLITLIST of Economics film, into which a merge seems warranted anyway, as I mentioned when I DePROded the page today,, but size-wise, a split seems better. Can be improved,. -Mushy Yank. 12:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, economics film is a sham. It was a student's essay, and almost none of the sources bear out. I am putting evidence on that article's talk page now, then I will remove most of that content per WP:BURDEN. This proves why you can't just cite Wikipedia to make arguments. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see you cut the other article quite massively. Feel free to rename the said article Economics in film or whatever you find appropriate. Or to merge the other article into this one and rename it List of films about economics, as it is less a "genre" than a topic. Books on the subject include Economics in Film and Fiction (2009); The Representation of Economics in Cinema: Scarcity, Greed and Utopia (2021); you can also use this kind of lists: https://inomics.com/blog/10-more-movies-economists-will-love-1531227, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26725780But it does seem to meet WP:NLIST as a set, even independently of the main article, so I'll stand by my !vote. I will not edit those pages myself, being a bit busy. -Mushy Yank. 13:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that economics in film could exist. The current prose article likely needs a complete overhaul since it was primarily a POV essay. As for listing, you're advocating that we should have a list of films about economics based on a corporation's list of "films that economists love" and on a list of "greatest films for teaching economics". Neither list are actually directly "about" economics, as most films can be read economically (or to go higher-level, philosophically) and should not be shoehorned in. The concept of economics is too broad, where we could more readily have a list of stock market (or Wall Street) films (I've seen WP:NLIST-satisfying sources for these) or films related to the 2007-2008 financial crisis (likewise). There is no clearly-defined list scope here for economics films or films about economics, though. We shouldn't try to make fit what was masquerading to fit in the first place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Link to evidence here: Talk:Economics film § Evidence of essay approach. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST and the fact that this doesn't do much more what Category:Business films, Category:Documentary films about business and Category:Documentary films about economics do (no Category:Films about economics?). (Owning Mahowny is an economics film???) Clarityfiend (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 FC Chernihiv season

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

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

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

2018–19 FC Chernihiv season

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

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

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

Vladyslav Panko

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. K. Dakshinamoorthy Sthapati

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

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

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

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

Denis Bališ

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did some quick research, and no sources were found to qualify him for a Wikipedia page. I did find this article, but I don't think it would make a difference. Aona1212 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That source is just a passing mention on squad list: Krakovany vs. Siladice 0–4. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Giorgi Parpalia

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

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

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

250 (number)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

270 (number)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Keep. I think being a small example of a harmonic divisor number, the culturally significant number of being a way to describe a 3/4 turn, and the application to US politics make three interesting unrelated properties, enough for WP:NNUM. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like there's enough to go on for a short page, and we might be able to say more (I found [24], for example). XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. It's a good place for our core readership to research the United States Electoral College. Bearian (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tobi Asehinde

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and cannot establish WP:SIGCOV of the subject. They are either puff piece, our story section, no single mention or or pass mentioned sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Africa, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, there is no valid secondary sourcing provided to prove notability enough to warrant a page under WP:ANYBIO. Also, BellaNaija is a fashion blog, not a newspaper. It is not practicing journalism in my view, it never seems impartial and only writes "puff" pieces. Yet this same website is listed in so many different articles that are up for deletion. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1701 (number)

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

Info in the article seems a bit trivial. -- Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the standards at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), that is. -- Beland (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). None of the properties of this number listed here are interesting. Even the one that is plausibly a notable property, being a Harshad number, is not interesting: there are infinitely many Harshad numbers and this one is far far down in the sequence, so far that it is neither listed in the initial part of the sequence given by our article nor OEIS. And the Star Trek trivia isn't even about this number; it is just about a digit sequence that happens to be part of an alphanumeric designation of a fictional spaceship, not about the number that the same digit sequence represents. At best it would belong on a disambiguation page for 1701, not on the article about the number. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Using the "nice" keyword on OEIS as a reasonable proxy for when a property might be deemed "interesting", I was able to scare up three examples, but one is equivocal, since 1701 appears way down the list; another strikes me as rather arcane and base-specific. The third is the best I could find. (Just being somewhere among the Stirling numbers of the second kind isn't remarkable, but being the largest $\left\{{n \atop k}\right\}$ for some $n$ is a little more noteworthy.) If I followed my own tastes, I'd have two "interesting" properties and would recommend a weak delete; sticking with how these discussions have interpreted OEIS tags for consistency, I'd end up at a weak keep. XOR'easter (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

213 (number)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

TACTIC (web framework)

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

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

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

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

Butt-Head

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

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

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

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

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

Georg C. F. Greve

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

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

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

Colt MARS

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

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

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

.375 Winchester

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

Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep - useful reference page for the calibre with the relevant standards and load data referenced - limited use outside of a specialist community but still valuable data to retain as the ammo and rifles remain in use. 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.56-56 Spencer

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

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

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

Keep We should not delete on the absence of citations in one version of the article, but as to whether such sources exist or not. Although clearly a dead-end in firearms design, the Spencer rifle and its cartridge was historically important (arguably of course, given that this is a firearms topic) as the first self-contained metallic cartridge for a repeating rifle. Even with such argument as to whether the Henry or the Spencer came first, and what the definition of 'first' is as to workability, this was clearly an important weapon and thousands of them were used in the Civil War. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
agree - keep- the spencer carbine is a historically important firearm 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.22 BR Remington

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

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

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

7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum

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

Tagged for notability, sounds a bit promotional. -- Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like a lot of these you have tagged [Beland] - it's a reference article taken from the manufacturer published data - often with these there is no other reference material - taking them off Wikipedia will just make this info even harder to find for enthusiasts and researchers 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.32 Remington

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

Tagged for notability for a year. -- Beland (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.25 Winchester Super Short Magnum

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

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

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

.348 Winchester

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

Tagged for notability for 2.5 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drive-by 'notability' tagging by an editor with no other involvement in the article is no reason to delete an article on a clear topic with multiple sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the editor who tagged it for deletion should try to find some references for the item listed instead of flagging for deletion. .348 WINCHESTER is still produced and used. As such, it would be wrong to delete this article. 63.210.244.190 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nese Server 2008 R2

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

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

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

Théo Emmanuelli

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

Fails WP:GNG. Player made one five-minute Ligue 2 appearance in 2021. I found some coverage here, transfer coverage here, and here, but no real significant coverage. Player just transferred to fourth-division side Granville at age 24. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: since this nomination (or the same morning at least) there has also been this press release and this passing mention. It doesn't amount to sigcov, but it might be worth draftifying with two new references this week. @Paul Vaurie @GiantSnowman CNC (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Routine transfer news of a player leaving one National club to go to another. Giant Snowman 16:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Australia

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

This article is supposedly about an industry association for English language schools in Australia, but contains almost no information about the actual association. Instead, almost the entire article reads as an unsourced advert/guide for how to apply to English language courses in Australia. I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that the organisation itself would meet WP:GNG - their media releases are sometimes quoted in specialist publications, but there doesn't seem to be any secondary SIGCOV. The title could potentially be turned into a redirect for either English Australians or Australian English? MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I replaced the questionable unsourced content with new content and secondary sources. It now meets notability and has adequate sources for a stub class article. Rublamb (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a massive, massive improvement, thank you for that! I've had a look at the new sources, but I'm not really convinced that they're sufficient to demonstrate notability. Of the new sources, the only secondary sources that go beyond very brief mentions of English Australia/the ELICOS Association are the articles in The Koala and The PIE News, both of which are pretty niche publications on international education. The PIE News one is solid, but The Koala essentially repeats the content of an appeal that English Australia sent to its members and ends with "The Koala wishes English Australia well in the running of its campaign", so I'm unsure of whether this really counts as significant coverage from an outlet independent of the subject, or to what extent The Koala is a reliable source. So of the new sources the only one that seems to me like it can be counted towards notability is the article in PIE, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG. MCE89 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. WP:G7 (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled Egg Records

AfDs for this article:

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

created by mistake, meaning to comment on for user Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G7 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged as G7. @Jonpatterns: Please note that you can tag any article that you create under this speedy criterion without needing to bring it to AfD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Faris Al-Hammadi

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. The article fails to demonstrate any proof of notability and relies heavily on sources from social media platforms such as X, Instagram, and LinkedIn, which are generally not considered reliable. The few non-social media sources included are either trivial mentions or lack the depth and significance required to establish notability.

Based on my research, and after conducting a WP:BEFORE, I could not find independent, reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage of the subject. While the individual is a social media influencer with a large following, this alone does not suffice to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:ANYBIO / WP:CREATIVE). Available sources fail to support WP:V. QEnigma talk 13:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The current sourcing by the author is a major issue, but the subject seems to have relevant prominence with 750k+ followers. Per WP:BEFORE, subject also appears to be related to Hussain Al Hammadi and other UAE gov operatives. OrebroVi (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that, per WP:INVALIDBIO, notability is not inherited. A subject's relationship with notable individuals or entities doesn't automatically make them notable. According to the notability guideline, notability is determined by significant, independent, and reliable coverage of the subject, not follower counts.

If you or another editor can provide reliable sources showing significant coverage, the article may be reconsidered. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development Agency (Turkey)

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

I found the source in the Turkish article at https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Kalkinma-Ajanslarinin-Turk-Hukuk-Sistemindeki-Yeri-Ahmet-Tamer.pdf but I think it needs someone more familiar with the subject to figure out whether this is notable. At least one agency still exists https://ankaraka.org.tr/en But are they just window-dressing for development policies which are now top-down? As the Ministry of Development (Turkey) no longer exists how do they work and who controls them? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NTVNATL and merge as proposed by the nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([25] [26] [27] [28]) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 [29], showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well [30].... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Professional League 1

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

Tagged almost a decade ago as unsourced and article does not exist in Turkish so probably not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to History of Turkish football as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure that a redirect would be appropriate given that the topic is not mentioned in the proposed target page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncited for 9 years. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Henry District High School

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

Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. This is a non notable school. Fails WP:NORG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: as an WP:ATD per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As nominator I find the suggested redirect wholly acceptable 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:
All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)
Sources
1. Mayhew, Chris (2017-05-18). "St. Henry District High School plans $6 million addition". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The Cincinnati Enquirer is a major newspaper in Cincinnati, Ohio, while the St. Henry District High School is a high school in Erlanger, Kentucky. The article notes: "St. Henry District High School will spend $6 million to build the largest auditorium at any Diocese of Covington Catholic school. ... The auditorium and other projects are phase one of a new financial giving campaign called Building on Excellence, Guided by Faith. This is the Catholic high school's first expansion in more than 20 years. There are 560 students from 20 grade schools enrolled at St. Henry paying a $7,200 annual tuition. St. Henry is the largest co-ed school in the diocese. Enrollment has increased by 18 percent since the school won a 2012 National Blue Ribbon of educational excellence award. Parishes served by the high school include St. Henry and St. Barbara in Erlanger and the Boone County parishes of All Saints, Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mary Queen of Heaven, St. Paul, St. Timothy and Cristo Rey."
2. Winston, Earnest (1998-11-16). "Diocese blesses N.Ky. school: New St. Henry has room to grow". The Cincinnati Enquirer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Senior Anne Schmidt vividly remembers her frustration as she sat inside crowded classrooms at the old St. Henry High School in Elsmere. But the 17-year-old literally hit a high note Sunday. She was among dozens of students who sang during a dedication ceremony for the new St. Henry District High School. An estimated 1,500 people attended Sunday's dedication and open house. ... The $5.6 million facility is the first Roman Catholic high school ever in Boone County, and the first built by the Diocese of Covington in 40 years. The school enrolls about 470 students from seven feeder parishes, but has room for 600.... The school features a "Bricks of Success" wall, which carries 932 engraved bricks bought by alumni and friends. Each came with a pledge of at least $500."
3. Melman, Karen (1998-11-19). "St. Henry: 'Welcome to the neighborhood'". The Boone County Recorder. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "In 1942, 17 students graduated from a tiny St. Henry High School. Virginia Dahlenburg Reese was among them. Sunday, Reese, a Crestview Hills resident, was one of nearly 1,500 who packed the cafeteria of the new $5.6 million dollar St. Henry District High School, off Donaldson Road. She watched as it was dedicated and blessed by the Most Rev. Robert Muench, the Covington Diocese bishop. ... Today, the school is 467 students strong. And enrollment is expected to jump to 500 next year. ... Located on Scheben Drive, the new building features a chapel, a new cafeteria, sports fields, and a state-of-the art gymnasium that I will soon be built. The names of contributors who donated $500 or more are featured on the "Bricks of Success," a wall inside the school. Many people are to thank, said Principal David Otte, who called the campaign, a "diocese effort." Though proud of the new school-one with a strong 65-year history-the bishop stressed it isn't the "state-of-the art" building that is important."
4. Gramke, Chris (1998-09-03). "St. Henry students head into school year in new building" (pages 1 and 2). The Boone County Recorder. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Students attending St. Henry District High School this fall might need directions to find their school. That's because students have a brand-new, state-of-the-art building located at 3755 Scheben Drive they can call home once classes begin on Sept. 8. ... The new building is 70,000 square feet and includes 23 classrooms, a chemistry lab, a biology lab, a cafeteria and a gymnasium. Two computer classrooms and a modern library are also located in the new building. It is the first Catholic high school ever located in Boone County. It's a far cry from the old high school, which had no gymnasium and saw the high-schoolers sharing a cafeteria with the grade school students. ... Not everything is going to be ready when the doors open for students Sept. 8. None of the athletic fields has been completed, which means the high school soccer teams must play their home games at Fox Field in Elsmere for another season."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow St. Henry District High School to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. Vintage article from when schools had a free pass. Almost no secondary schools in North America have been deleted, even since that ended. They almost all have plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roman_Catholic_Diocese_of_Covington#High_schools: The school has a historical relevance but as of now redirection is the best option. Charlie (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has historical relevance why are you suggesting redirection? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  @Necrothesp historical relevance as written in its official website. However, I am unable to find the same historical coverage in secondary sources. Charlie (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion by Cunard that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon County Schools

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, so we are at AfD. Schools and school districts are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:NORG as presented here. Suggesting Draftify pending further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir–Nazilli Regional

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

Tagged over a decade ago as unsourced. Cites on Turkish article are all primary sources and don’t show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Partner (album)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. The Dusted review is the only one I've seen covering this album significantly but the reliability of the website is unclear ([31]) and even if it's reliable, it's insufficient. Frost 07:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Please also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CarrionSeasoning. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kolesnikov

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is essentially unsourced. Some of the unsourced content is apparently a misinformation, possibly a hoax. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ML Lather

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

The subject fails WP:NBIO, no significant coverage about him in sources. Being a former DGP does not make one inherently notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Police, Haryana, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Forte

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an interesting one. Forte received a couple paragraphs of coverage in the New York Times when she was 11 in an article discussing junior skaters [[32]] (although it does not pass WP:YOUNGATH, it still provides additional context to the subject). The subject also enough coverage at [[33]], [[34]], [[35]] and [[36]] to meet the WP:GNG Let'srun (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Let's run there is much more coverage on this one than the majority of AfD skating articles.Canary757 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorcerer Supreme

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable role that lists every non-notable character to fill said role in the comics, or every time a character briefly took on the mantle. This role isn't individually notable of any of the actual significant characters who held the role as a major part of their characters, such as Strange or the Ancient One. News searches turned up WP:ROUTINE coverage of the role's various changes in the comics, WP:VALNET sources that don't contribute to notability, or summary style articles that only recap plot info. Scholar and Books yield a few hits that look promising at a glance, but the sources that mention the role are predominantly discussing Doctor Strange, with the role only being brought up as a significant part of his character. This role is not independently notable of Strange or any other character, and is better off redirected to Strange's article, given the bulk of coverage predominantly discusses the mantle in the form of Strange's usage of it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Strange. I did some digging per WP:BEFORE, but this is the only good source so far [37]. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Boneless Pizza!. There isn't really much distinct WP:SIGCOV to separate this from Doctor Strange. Other characters are mentioned, and this can be done at that article. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: S in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE should no other coverage can be found. We have to put the information of those other Sorcerer Supremes somewhere on this website including the one from Earth-6160. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean List of Marvel Comics characters: S? Either way, I'd oppose a merge. The Sorcerer Supreme is a role, not a character, and should not be put on a character list. The bulk of the characters on this list link somewhere else already; if they're mentioned anywhere as being Sorcerer Supreme, the explanation that exists at Strange's article should suffice to explain what the role is. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the link. Help me out here, but are you suggesting that either you want the page to remain or have an honorable mentioning on Doctor Strange's page while having the other known Sorcerer Supremes transferred to the respectful List of Marvel Comics characters pages if the final outcome of this discussion ends with a merging? --Rtkat3 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a redirect to Strange more than suffices. We don't need to add references to a bulk of the characters on the list, since they either have their own articles already, or are so minor and obscure that they don't need to be mentioned. Strange's article more than suffices if an explanation of the Sorcerer Supreme role is needed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. WP:FANCRUFT failing WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Franz Adolph of Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg-Hoym

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

Can't verify subject, may be a hoax or just not notable. Neither of the two alive sources are reliable and I can't comment on the third. All the search results are circular sites or other unreliable sources.

I found some German sources but I can't evaluate them: [38] [39] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by DoubleGrazing per criterion A7. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YBSPoloBabyy

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

This page appears to be an autobiography (created by User:YBSPoloBabyy (talk)), contains no sources and does not meet notability standards. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG per a quick Google. Snowycats (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete YBSPoloBabyy (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Araba 2004

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

Does not meet WP:NSINGLE. Unreferenced. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Music. -Samoht27 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Appears to satisfy WP:GNG as the music video was a subject of scholarly analysis by multiple authors: [40] [41]. I can't find anything beyond these two authors though. The two authors both appear in the first source, but I don't think it stops the sources from being independent of each other. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mustafa Sandal or Mustafa Sandal discography: not convinced a separate article is necessary Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Westchester County tornado

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

Wow, I've never AfD'd an FA before. Anyways, this tornado is not notable as there was no coverage past a few days after the event, with one mention three months after the event, too low for a tornado in my opinion. Fails my criteria as well. If this article were to be made today, I'm 100% sure it would no longer exist. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NEVENT and there is no WP:LASTING coverage. It's rarity, much like its rating, means absolutely nothing if no sources consistently talk about. Notability concerns were also brought up during the FAC, so I'm not sure how it passed. E_F⁵ 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 04:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It got a lot of coverage at the time of the event and still gets mentioned as a notable NY State/Northeast tornado after many years (for example, here, here, here, here, and here). Plus, this isn't a crappily written stub, it's an FA, so there's some readable text there (though it looks like it needs some updatilng), and if it's even a close call, I'd rather preserve the content. Plus, all the reviewers at FAC (and GA and any peer review) must have thought that it was notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider any of those sources WP:INDEPTH. An article's class has little to do with it's notability in this case; the article was FACed in 2008 and standards... weren't as high back then. Was going to take it to FAR but realized it likely isn't even notable. This isn't the first time a tornado GA/FA has been at a delete/merge venue, see this discussion which almost ended with a GA being merged. E_F⁵ 13:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – Whilst the article is an FA, most of the coverage occurred during the initial aftermath of the tornado, with none of the sources presented above, or those from a search, including continued significant or in-depth coverage of the event. Optionally, a merge to Tornadoes of 2006#July 11–12 is a possibility. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Although some news coverage still exists, it is mostly in the form of "tornadoes in New York are rare" or something along that line, and not much about the actual tornado.

the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no lasting significant coverage. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since we are considering deleting an FA. Also, there is a proposal to Merge this article which needs due consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I hate to vote in this AFD (oddly the only remaining tornado FA), the 2 miles of damage and 2 million in damage and six minor injuries for an EF2 really don't cut it for a tornado with its own article. Even the 2021 Naperville-Woodridge tornado article which I got into GA-class was right on the edge of notability and that had 5 more injuries, a higher EF rating, and deeper coverage. I'll also note that by deleting this, there will be no more individual tornado articles of FA class, so if you're interested, I have an FA pending for Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse - while not quite a tornado article, I'd appreciate what help I can get with it before the FAC gets archived with no consensus. Departure– (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this tornado is notable in its location and set records and this is a featured article and i have to question this AFD as it looks like it was hastily issued without any attempt to see if there's more info online to add to the article. 216.24.109.110 (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Jazirah Aviation crash

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

Unnotable aviation accident. Although a tragic one, this is a routine accident. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and United Arab Emirates. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL general aviation accident. Tragic, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficiently covered at Al Jazeirah Airport, no issue with merging any information here to that article before deletion (but there really is too much detail here per concerns above re: WP:NOTMEMORIAL). I'd have voted redirect as an ATD, but really can't see why anyone would search '2024 Jazirah Aviation Crash'... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:RUNOFTHEMILL article. Protoeus (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete I am confused how this even got past article creations notability standards. Wikipedia:NOTNEWS Wikipedia:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE apply here for deletion. Lolzer3k 20:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL: just another small aircraft crash. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This accident is related to general aviation, and just because it crashed does not mean it should have its own Wikipedia article. These kinds of accidents are run-of-the-mill aviation accidents. See WP:AIRCRASH. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 12:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:AIRCRASH, This essay includes generally accepted criteria for when to add mention of aircraft accidents to articles about airports, airlines and aircraft type articles. By consensus this should not be used to determine whether a stand-alone article should exist or not. [...] Because this is an essay and not policy and also because it should not be applied to stand-alone accident articles, it is recommended that it not be cited at Articles for Deletion discussions for either keeping or deleting. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:AIRCRASH Nightmares26 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the comment above. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shields, Accomack County, Virginia

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

I've been PRODding my most recent batch of Virginia ones, but taking this one to AFD as I'm less confident here. Whitelaw's county history has references to the index to "Shield's P.O." and "Shield's Wharf", but unfortunately the volume those are in is not on Internet Archive. Those items are mentioned only on one page. Nothing in the Arcadia history of the county. Searching on newspapers.com is very difficult due to search engine noise, but I'm just getting passing references to surnames, the wharf, and a steamship landing that is probably the wharf. I don't see a WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND pass here, and substantive sourcing will be needed here especially given the vague name. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Virginia. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This locale has no established notability, except, perhaps, at a very local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Moldovan Youth League

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

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, such stub articles are notable. The winner of this competition qualifies to Uefa competition, such articles exists also for Spain , England U18 level,and few more countries. However I completely agree, there is not enough sources, adding seconfpdary sources will be great. Kolya77 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exists in other countries is not really relevant to the notability of this article. Are you able to provide any examples of in-depth coverage from independent sources? JTtheOG (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Morning, there is coverage for sure. Technicaly there are plenty news about this league on websites, social media platforms. I just did a google search and I personally found a lot of them. Matches of this U19 league are regulary on Moldovan TV named - We Sport. Also they are available on youtube platform. This is the link - https://www.fmf.md/home/competitii/juniori/liga-tineret-1723368813?menu=news

I personally didnt add a lot of this secondary sources just because this was not my goal. The primary source was able to cover the league table and results of each season. However moldovan FA edited their website and unfortunately all the primary source until the season 2021–22 Moldovan Under-19 Division has gone.

You pointed out the artiifle for the league itself does not exist, just to let you know im planning to make one similar to this one

League of Ireland U19 Division , but im really short of time this days, plus is a festive period in eastern europe until 14 January.however, i will definetly make one, maybe will less words comparing to Ireland U19 league. Kolya77 (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Moldovan FA would not be an independent source, since they organize the Moldovan Youth League. Notice how the Irish article you provided is sourced to publications such as The Irish Times, the Irish Examiner, the Connacht Tribune, the Irish Independent, RTÉ.ie, the Evening Echo and The Mayo News. But yes, creating the league article is a good alternative if you were able to find independent sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 06:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Fails WP:GNG as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV of this bus depot. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Of the 5 sources, one is a non-RS wiki, one from the operator, and three don't even mention the subject. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect Toyota683 (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Delete -- seems like foamer bs to me.
EDIT: on a second look, looks like there are a bunch of these, all look to be foamer nonsense, and definitely not wikipedia-level stuff imo. Best, MTATransitFan^Chat! 00:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Love, Misery: New New York

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM, the only mentions of this film are a handful of online reviews from smaller websites. This film has generally positive reviews but isn't otherwise notable. Many editors have tried to improve the article but there isn't much to work with outside those reviews. See Talk page where this was discussed. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, COVID-19, and United States of America. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per the significant coverage in reliable/[generally-accepted] sources. -Mushy Yank. 04:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC) [Edited; see below and TP][reply]
Keep This is a relatively low budget independent documentary film, but that does not mean that it is not notable. Rotten Tomatoes is considered a reliable source for review aggregation, per WP:ROTTENTOMATOES, although not every review that is aggregated is automatically presumed to be reliable. In this case, the film has seven reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them generally positive though not overwhelmingly positive. Four reviews are currently used as references in the article. Those four sources, Film Carnage, Film Threat, High on Films and GhMovieFreak are already used extensively as references in many existing film articles. If it is argued and agreed that those sites are not reliable in this article, then it will be necessary to edit hundreds of film articles to remove references to those sources and the content they support. Is the nominator willing to take on that task? A complicating factor in this case is that the article was created by a highly problematic editor who has since been indefintely blocked. However, other editors in good standing have contributed to the article, and we should not delete articles about notable topics just because they were originally written by editors who have later been blocked. That can be perceived as vindictive. The article was Prodded twice but only one prod per article is allowed. I deprodded it. In conclusion, I believe that the best course of action is to keep this article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Actually, there are 5 reviews cited. -Mushy Yank. 06:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the fifth review just added as a reference is from BWRC which is also widely cited as a reliable source in film articles. Cullen328 (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But Jovanmillic97 removed one, so we are back to 4...For the record, unless we are dealing with a BLP and a potentially libelous source, I disapprove the bold removal of content when a page is being discussed, especially when it’s sourced and sources are, precisely, the main point being discussed. -Mushy Yank. 13:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 The "sources are already used extensively in many articles" or that it's a big hassle to edit them all out arguments are very, very thin and neither are based in any Wikipedia guideline or policy. Just a cursory search on the first one (Film Carnage) reveals that it's a blog by some Rebecca (film fan with no journalistic credits or anything) reviewing indie films. Is that what are we calling "reliable" nowadays? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you do not count the reviews from the three sites mentioned below, including the one you mention, 5-3=2, which is the threshold commonly accepted for the number of reviews necessary for a film, and that is based on NFILM and/or GNG. -Mushy Yank. 13:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should be wary of reviews from Film Carnage, High on Films, and GhMovieFreak. There are a lot of film articles out there that are under the radar, while articles for mainstream films get a lot of attention. So it's always possible that these proliferated inappropriately and may be propping up other articles falsely. As it has been said, "other stuff exists". We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is a commercial website, so it is financially interested in collating all possible reviews for any film. It's basically like IMDb's External reviews page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies as I didn't notice the first PROD.

I came across this article due to the blocked editor, but I didn't want that to be used as a reason for deletion so deliberately didn't mention it here. If the consensus is "keep" then I'm more than happy to tidy up the review section, although I'm not sure how to beef up/expand the remainder since the bulk of the article is the review section - that was one of my concerns during the TP discussion with @Axad12 on what to do next (this is where AFD came up).

I'll gladly accept & seek out any tips or recommendations on how best to proceed with that endeavour if the article stays, so every post here is really helpful in that respect! Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: Sourcing available in the article itself meets NFILM. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 05:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Reading Beans, did you mean to say "Keep"? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I’ll change it now. I definitely misclicked. Thank you for letting me know. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the set of reviews for this film, only one is a reliable source: Film Threat. The other reviews are not reliable sources. Being used for the Rotten Tomatoes score does not mean anything since RT is a commercial website that will collate everything possible. It's like a film having an IMDb page with a list of external reviews available. If many Wikipedia articles are citing these reviews, that's a big problem. It could be more people like the editor who made this, or editors who thought they can just use any review listed at RT, regardless of reliability. Of course, I work mainly with mainstream film articles, so if there is a WP:RS case to be made for these reviews, go ahead and make it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but what makes you say BRWC is not reliable? -Mushy Yank. 13:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at About Us, I do not see the people involved as having beyond-the-website credentials to be "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject" per WP:SOURCEDEF. In the footer, it proclaims itself as "a blog about films". If it is a blog, it can only be acceptable per WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Google Books here seems to show only one book that has ever referenced BRWC. I don't see anything in Google Scholar either. What is your take? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s technically a blog but not in the sense of a personal blog and they have a limited team of contibutors not just whoever wants to write there; they exist since 2008, so they might be considered OK, I guess. And the author of the review seems to have wrtitten a lot of reviews that look Okaysih in terms of quality. GhMovieFreak is a bit of the same, it’s not user-generated. If there was a list like Lists of films about the COVID-19 pandemic, I’d say redirect but there does not seem to be one. And with the Film Threat review, that’s generally reliable, i feel it would be unfair to delete this. -Mushy Yank. 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page seems lacking in its actual state. The Reception section, which currently is the only section with more than 2 lines of text, has partial and redundant content. Did at least one of the contributors even watch the documentary? Bit-Pasta (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do think at least one did. -Mushy Yank. 00:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per Erik above. Axad12 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will say that personally, I see BRWC as a RS as long as it's a non-paid article. However I'm aware that overall the sourcing here isn't the strongest. So what I'm suggesting here isn't that we keep this article but rather than we create an article for the director. She's put out some other films that have received reviews from places like The Hollywood Reporter, Cinema Crazed (typically seen as reliable on here), and Film Journal International. There appears to be enough sourcing to justify creating an article for her - we can have a section on her film career so it's not just a list of films and links to reviews. That could be a good compromise here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shannon Alexander. It's not the biggest or best article I've ever done on a director, but I think there's enough to justify him passing notability. This also gives a good compromise: we can redirect this article to the director's page. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. The suggested redirect and possible merge can be a good compromise. Best wishes. -Mushy Yank. 04:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the newly created article on Alexander passes GNG? It looks to me that there is a shortage of decent coverage about Alexander - just a single interview and a collection of film reviews (i.e. not actually sources about the director himself). I think it would be a good idea if somebody nominated the Shannon Alexander article to AfD to test this in practice.

It doesn't seem a very good idea to recommend a redirect when the redirect article suffers from exactly the same problem as the article which is the subject of this AfD. Axad12 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus on whether or not the existing sources are sufficient and now there is a suggestion to Redirect or Merge that needs to be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, both High on Films and Film Carnage is not reliable as they publish almost anything and the writers have no prior journalism experience! But Film Threat is reliable and BRWC is per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, Joel Fisher has a BA in Writing + published work for other decent film review sites. Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline pass Bengele (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Something looks rather dodgy about this vote.

The user has emerged from 6 almost entirely inactive years to make virtually their first edits since they were 14 years old (according to their user page). This results in them arriving at a finely balanced AfD for a rather obscure film, the first time they have participated in an AfD. Given the history of the user who created this article (a promo SPA who has recently been indef blocked) there must surely be plausible concerns that some form of off-wiki canvassing has occurred. Axad12 (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh one of my best friends is featured on it (Pretty cool right!) and she said to read it. Don't really see why this should be deleted though Bengele (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/weak merge (nominator) I've taken a look through everyone's arguments, my overall opinion hasn't really changed as only one source is uncontroversially accepted as meeting criteria, whilst a second is questionable ("okayish") and the others don't pass muster per Erik's and Axad12's earlier comments.

The director's newly created article has been questioned as having similar sourcing/notability problems as this one - one single interview then swathes of film reviews.

It's also a bit concerning re. notability that the article was only created as a response to this AFD, not because of the inherent notability of the director himself (BTW I can see that an RS tag was added but then removed a few hours later from Alexander's article so I could be misunderstanding this).

If this is merged then I presume we'd need to include similar sections for all his other films, I'm happy to work on doing that if it happens. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, film reviews have always been an acceptable way of establishing notability for film directors. It's really no different than using book reviews to establish notability for an author. Their work received coverage in RS, so it's a sign of notability.

As for the topic of creating articles in response to an AfD, this is pretty common on Wikipedia. Someone nominates an article with shaky notability, but in the process someone notices that the main parent topic (in this case a director) has a stronger or even obvious case for notability. There's nothing wrong with creating an article on that main parent topic. Not only does this give Wikipedia a place to cover the sub-topic in a way that might not have otherwise been possible, but I've personally found that it tends to deter people from creating or re-creating articles on topics with shakier notability. I know that there are people out there with agendas, but not every article re-creation is done because of paid editing or similar. (Not that you were accusing me of that, just that I know that's a common reason some articles are re-created.) In this specific situation I saw that the director had received coverage for two of his other films, so I thought that a good compromise might be to create the director's article. The notability on this one is shaky, but with the director's article we have a way of ensuring that we have some coverage of the movie without focusing specifically on it.

However while I'm on the topic of the director article, I am a bit dismayed that someone went and cleaned out the filmography section and reduced it to just two movies. I can't help but feel like this was done as a way to emphasize how non-notable they felt the director was, particularly after the notability tag was removed. Their justification was a lack of sourcing for the filmography section. I would shrug that off, except that they also removed Sex, Love, Misery - which was sourced in the biography section - I'd just neglected to link the source to the filmography section - something that they themselves could have done rather than remove it. In any case, I've added sources for the short films, a primary and non-primary one. The non-primary one looks to be usable enough - other pages use it and it's also been used as a source in some academic/scholarly books like this and this.

I normally wouldn't go into so much depth about a separate article except that this is kind of related to the AfD. I just want to give a word of caution since I am worried about people being so bent on deletion that they go overboard. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ReaderofthePack, thank you for adding the relevant sourcing to the Shannon Alexander article, which I think we both agree was required. I trust that you also agree with my other removal (re: Shannon Alexander not being "known for" making documentaries). My apologies if I have caused you any dismay.

Incidentally, I'm not bent on deletion of the Shannon Alexander article, I simply added a tag to it to say that the article may not have been sufficiently notable. I added that tag to invite comment from other users. If I had been bent on deletion there are several courses of action that I might have taken, e.g. referring the article to AfD, PRODding it, or requesting speedy deletion under A7. Since I did none of those things hopefully it is self-evident that I am not bent on deletion but simply wished to raise a legitimate concern about the potential notability.

For the record, I broadly agree with you that an article about Shannon Alexander is, per se, more notable than the articles about the individual films - and in that regard I'm very happy to thank you for going to the trouble of setting up that article.

Wishing you all the best in your future endeavours, Axad12 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I am sorry that I assumed any bad faith on your part. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is significant coverage. BilboBeggins (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Glancing over the article I agree that it's borderline by the criteria of WP:NFILM, but it doesn't obviously fail, and the information currently in the article seems to be well-sourced (at least in that it doesn't contain OR). I say we either merge into the director article or we stand down and give this article some time to grow. -- LWG ^talk 15:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit Greenville Garage

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Article was moved back to the mainspace without showing the slightest indication of notability. The only sources are a user-generated site and a PDF of a bus schedule. JTtheOG (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Tabin

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.

I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!

If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [42]. ResonantDis_tortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for both WP:PROF#C5 (the named professorship) and WP:GNG (the media coverage of his cataract work) is clear. He doesn't appear to have made an impact in scholarly publications (PROF#C1) but he doesn't need to when notability for his medical outreach work is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Tabin has an endowed professorship at Stanford, which required a multi-million dollar donation from a donor. Other than being chair of a department, an endowed chair is arguably the highest honor that one can achieve as an academic physician. Having an endowed chair at a prestigious university (Stanford) is a strong indicator to having achieved the highest level of success an academia.

As for his accomplishments, Geoff Tabin will go down as one of the most impactful ophthalmologists of all time. Through his NGO, Cure Blindness Project, he has directly financed 1.6 million cataract surgeries (a mind boggling number in Ophthalmology)—and when factoring in the surgeries performed by the trainees that CureBlindness hospitals have trained, that number likely exceeds 10 million. To give a comparison point, there are about 3 million cataracts performed in the entire United States per year. He has established five tertiary teaching hospitals (e.g. built an entire Eye Department in Nepal, Ghana, etc) and funded subspecialty fellowships for hundreds of physicians, ensuring that multiple low- and middle-income countries now have their first retina, glaucoma, cornea, oculoplastics, and pediatric ophthalmologists.

When considering the cumulative impact of his work, he will likely have more impact than almost any Ophthalmologist in the history of the world. Furthermore, he will be one of the more impactful physicians in Global Health (not just Ophthalmologists) of all time based on the scale that his operations have reached (and continue to grow).

His other accomplishment (climbing, mountaineering) are also exceptional, but I will not delve into those details as the original concern was just for WP:NPROF. Arthurbrant21 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Health Dynamics Inventory

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

Non-notable medical tool. The inventors of this procedure appear to have copy-pasted promotional material onto Wikipedia, and even left their contact information at the bottom. It remains without secondary sourcing 14 years later. All the sigcov listed is self-published by the authors. Jdcooper (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found several PhD theses on ProQuest that use the Health Dynamics Inventory, but I can't find any independent journal articles that use it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't find any secondary coverage on google scholar. I think WP:TNT applies even in the case that a wikipedia article could be written.--Rolluik (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been PROD'd before so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about an assessment framework which is still marketed. The article makes various claims but has always lacked more than lists of papers by the framework's creators. RHaworth's 2010 PROD on grounds of " no evidence of notability" was removed by an IP without comment or improvement. Searches find sporadic mentions, such as this presentation which mentions "Lack of research" as the first limitation. Particularly in medical areas, it is not appropriate to maintain articles lacking reliable references to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of music and dance anime

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

I'm not an expert with the Anime WP, but the term "music and dance anime" seems not to satisfy WP:NLIST: it's not a specific category on the wiki, the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain anime that use idol setting or themes as part of a bigger plot would seem to be so vague and indefinite as to make the list difficult to populate or understand what makes an entry eligible. There is also no sourcing to support list entries. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to List of musical anime I'll try to fix and redefine it. WP:TNT is also an option . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the two options you've presented are polar opposites. Just clarifying - do you think the list as currently drafted can satisfy WP:NLIST? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Music, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain...", the autor of the article here, is because there already is a list of idol anime and manga so there is no need to duplicate things. Also majority of people are not into both, they are either into idol things or are not. You could divide music anime/manga genres into two broad subgenres: idol subgenre and non-idol subgenre. There are examples for "not strictly idol, but uses idol setting as part of a bigger plot": Heroines Run the Show: The Unpopular Girl and the Secret Task. A girl works for an idol and in idol setting but the story is not about being an idol or becoming an idol. The other is Key the Metal Idol. Also in idol setting but there is a conspiracy behind the curtain and existential crisis of a robot - now compare it to run of the mill idol stories like Pretty Rhythm or D4DJ. There is also anime like Samurai Jam -Bakumatsu Rock-, Hypnosis Mic: Division Rap Battle Rhyme Anima and Paradox Live the Animation for which you could say are idol stories because of the characters but the story is not about being an idol. I don't think it's vague. It's just a question of is there a story about sth other than being (becoming) an idol in the story.
You stated "Inexplicably it also looks like the list contains manga as well." It does NOT. You should't misguide people and not provide examples. Everything on the list is/has an anime/OVA/ONA, but the "problem" is that not many anime have their own articles or (anime-)links redirect to a manga page. It would be ridiculous to expect than a 1 ep OVA has an article. I tried to have as many blue links as posssible so it's possible there are links to a manga but it DOES have anime/OVA/ONA.
There is "dance" in the name of the article because there are anime that revolve around dance, rather than just singing and playing instruments, namely Hula Fulla Dance, Brave Beats and Tribe Cool Crew.
"no sourcing" - not sth that cannot be done after the fact and there is a reason for that. not justification, but for majority of entries there is a blue link to the main article that has all the sourcing you can get so it's not sth I pulled out of my ass. I choose not to source, primarily, because I knew there were bound to be dense people, I was right, and there is likelihood for the article to be deleted, so potentially not to lose extra time I made that decision. A list like this, and this is quite a comprehensive list, takes quite a bit of time to make, more than you could guess. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have omitted the misleading statement in the nomination. I appreciate the time it's taken to create this. WP:NLIST and WP:SALAT is a concern because the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope. When looking at pages like List of idol anime and manga you can see there's a sourced background and exploration of its scope. Without that here, it's hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus. The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based on an editor's subjective assessment of how much the anime involves an idol plot. That's why external sourcing about this as a clear genre or category is important. Others may consider that this is a very clear and established genre category and if so that's ok and all that needs to be done is better support this in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Miminity. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Setenzatsu.2, I take it that your comment is a vote to "Keep" this article? Also, an AFD can not close with an outcome of "Rename" as that is an editing decision. If that is what you want to happen. then vote to Keep this article and then a potential rename discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Addendum to my comment/argument presented above: "the self-imposed criteria of not contain[ing] strictly idol anime, OVAs and ONAs but may contain..." was already addressed in my first comment, but to expand upon it (and address ＶＲＸＣＥＳ's answer to my comment: "The idol point is a concern because it would be quite WP:ARBITRARY to consider what goes in and out of this article based..." ), EVEN IF that is a problematic point of the list it only really concerns 2 to 5 anime out of close to 100 on the list. So it's not an argument for deletion of the entire list. Those entries could just be removed or a discussion could be held if those entries should be kept.
Now addressing "the list is manually assembled and has an unclear scope....hard to reliably figure out what qualifies an entry for the list other than loosely having a music and/or dance focus" I would argue that the scope is not unclear, and that it's not "loosely" focused on music. With two or three exceptions where the story is told with music (no dialog and the story is performed against a background of songs, like in A-Girl or My Oldies Are All Color) every other entry has an individual or a group (band, orchestra...) that PERFORMS music pieces. That is the scope - CHARACTERS PERFORM and are in-world artists in most cases (the same is for the two dance entries), except those few (I believe 2 or 3 at most) works where dialog is replaced with music, but for those music is essential to tell the story. That's the reason, I choose for it to be only an anime list - you can see and hear characters perform music/dance which in manga you cannot, but also while reading manga you cannot even imagine it because you don't know what the songs are, which is a bit different from other types of manga where you can imagine things based on description.
edit: I realised that on the surface "characters perform" excludes anime music videos (that are longer than 15 minutes if we stick to the requirement given for the list) but the same argument could be made for anime music videos as the argument given for titles like A-Girl or My Oldies Are All Color. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Flyover

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NGEO. Article needs a rewrite as well. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is terribly written, I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe this is a candidate for WP:TNT. A quick google search (in English only) pulls up enough results to meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there's much more in Urdu. Also, I think it may have also been named the Varanasi Flyover at one point? Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean the reason for the nom was its poor writing, it was actually about it not meeting notability criteria. Although if there are reliable sources, I may as well withdraw the nom TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Varanasi Flyover. The lack of details in the initial description may have led to confusion, making it seem poorly written. However, the actual information we gathered through a detailed survey was perceived as promotional by some individuals, which may have added to the misunderstanding.Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Abdul Muqtaddir Khan[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough in the way of independent sources to regard it as notable -- as far as I can see references 6 to 9 are the same, accounting for almost half of all the references. Why should any flyover be regarded as notable? Only if something important happened on it. As it happens the city where I live (Marseilles, France) has a flyover about 3 km in length, the avenue Alexandre Fleming, over the district of Belle de Mai, and it's not the only one, but I'd be very surprised if anyone wanted Wikipedia articles about them. Athel cb (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that's not made due to the rapes and the killings in Qasba_Aligarh_massacre Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)AbdulMuqtaddirKhan[reply]
Keep The sources currently in the article and even more in a BEFORE search do demonstrate it passes WP:GNG as a major infrastructure project, though it does need a rewrite. SportingFlyer T·C 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [43] or [44] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [45] Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment. A search on Google news and Google scholar shows the standard is in use by multiple equipment and mining companies, and the website is live. It turns up in a mining glossary, and is mentioned in articles about mining robotics and smart mining. We have few articles about tools for data capture or analysis because it is hard to find independent in-depth information about them; even harder for a tool such as this used in industry rather than academics. It would not be an orphan if we had articles about some of the current modern methods in mining. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t keep articles on the basis of trivial mentions or appearances in directories. Please read WP: GNG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A glossary is not a directory but indicates it is a term in the literature. Finding that literature is a problem. I was hoping someone with access to the industrial mining literature would find something. All I can find is unpublished master's theses and a presentation at an industry symposium not in libraries. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "presentation" is a peer-viewed conference paper from an academic conference, one can find it on Scopus. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to say how prestigious or rigorus the conference is. FWIW, the paper has never been cited (Google Scholar: [46]) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found some coverage in some papers. Here [47], which Oaktree b also found, and here [48]. I fail to see how ZimZalaBim found that the first paper by McBain and Timusk had no significant coverage, when there is a section of the paper for just the standard (B. International Rock Excavation Data Exchange Standard) and another section for using IREDES with condition monitoring (V. IREDES AUGMENTATION FOR CONDITION MONITORING). This is more than just passing mentions, if sections of a paper are given for the topic. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears to be minimal mention in only small number of very minor publications, which to me doesn't align with WP:SIGCOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding WP:SIGCOV just means "address[ing] the topic directly and in detail". If sections of a paper are about the topic, then it's more than just a trivial mention. Per the definition of WP:SIGCOV, the sources mentioned clearly pass by addressing the topic in significant detail. The only question is whether the sources should be considered as reliable. I do think it's fair to question the reliability of an academic conference and the proceedings published by it. However, if the academic conference is legitimate and peer-reviewed with acceptable academic standards, then these sources should be accepted as reliable sources verifying the notability of the article. For a niche subject matter like automation in the mining industry, one should not expect as much citations compared to a more prominent subject. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Live (2015 film)

AfDs for this article:

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

The film doesn't seem to have notability. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Iraq. NameGame (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kurdish cinema: or to the director if his page his kept. Not opposed to Keep if others find the film meets WP:NFIC as a production from Kurdistan. -Mushy Yank. 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets NFF with the coverage about production; filming, citation and link for review and news about the film verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendrea44 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Merge per Mushy Yank. If by some chance the director's article survives, I suppose it can be redirected there. Offhand I do vaguely remember hearing about this film but I can't remember the context. In any case, I did a search in English and Kurdish (via Google Translate). There really is almost nothing out there for this film - there was even less in Kurdish than there was in English. What I could find didn't really make me think that there was more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note - I accidentally put this on the director's AfD page. I was going to strike it, but decided to just remove it in order to avoid confusion given the large amount of sockpuppets that are plaguing that AfD. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First United Methodist Church (Midland, Texas)

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

This congregation has apparently been around a long time but I cannot find any evidence for its notability other than being the site of the Bush marriage, which really doesn't cut it. Mangoe (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NCHURCH, individual congregations may be evaluated on GNG, which this one pass with SIGCOV in the Midland Reporter-Telegram ([49], [50]) plus the coverage in various George W and Laura Bush biographies. (Once this AfD is over, the page should be moved to reflect that it is no longer United Methodist.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above, weak because its only one publication leaving aside the Bush bios, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified above are enough to support a brief article. ([51] looks like a separate article about the same pulpit swap as above) Eluchil404 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karnaval (song)

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

Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MyPhone myA18

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

No evidence of notability for this smartphone. I found pieces like this and this, but I think we would need a lot better sourcing to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Philippines. JTtheOG (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these 2 links should always be the same, but google search always finding me for shopping JGBlue1509 (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your argument. JTtheOG (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to MyPhone per WP:ATD-R. Unnotable smartphone model. Most of the sources you can find online are from tech blogs. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge. this is not reliable, so it will be merged or redirected to the article MyPhone @AstrooKai JGBlue1509 (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I will change my verdict. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit Big Tree Garage

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

Article was twice moved to the mainspace without showing the slightest indication of notability. The only sources cited are a user-generated wiki. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators - I can't find any significant coverage in independent sources. (It's also arguably a copyvio of the CPTDB wiki.) Same goes for New Jersey Transit Kearny Point Garage. The related Category:NJ Transit Bus Garages and Template:NJ Transit Bus Garages And Yards should be deleted. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve nominated the other two similar depot articles. JTtheOG (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but no. All have pending sources. Toyota683 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toyota683: What sources do you mean? Could you provide links to these sources? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the 3 depot articles have links to the information. Un-nominate Kearny Point article now. It has info on it and it talks about its routes/fleet. Greenville and Big Tree are still in the work process for links. So, don’t try to do it to the other depots because we NJT fans want to see information about it. Toyota683 (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The improvements and added sources persuade me of notability. Also, I always think about this comment from WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dunya

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

This article is about the company that owns Daily Dunya, this is a directory reference, and this is a mention. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This subject does not seem notable. Fails WP:GNG. Mysecretgarden (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a member of the All Pakistan Newspapers Society (indicative, not determinative), and there's quite a lot of English-language analysis of its publications on GScholar[52]. From [53] found there, "The Urdu newspaper stories were extracted from the top five large circulation national dailies that is Daily Jang, Daily Dunya, Express, Daily Aaj, and Nawa-e-Waqt...". I presume that given the English language coverage evident that there would also be a level of coverage in Urdu. Its journalists have received awards[54][55] - reported on by unrelated sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 2 new references and fixed other references to show specific info about Daily Dunya newspaper directly and clearly. This daily newspaper is simultaneously published from 7 major cities of Pakistan - Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Gujranwala, Multan, Sargodha and Quetta. It's a notable Urdu-language daily newspaper in the country...Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. I am withdrawing this AFD. (non-admin closure) TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 California wildfires

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

Unnecessary article that goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fires will likely start in less then six months from now, I see no point in deleting this, then recreating it in such a short time. Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Next Brandenburg state election

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

While statute dictates the next state election must be before the end of 5 years, the date of this election is not set, and many variables could change the next election date. This leans toward WP:CRYSTAL. No objection to draftifying. Risker (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just draft it if it doesn't meet the standards to be a article yet. Don't delete. Spaastm (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It's now standard practice to create articles for the next election as soon as the current election is over, even if the date is variable/not known e.g. Next United Kingdom general election, Next Spanish general election. If there are specific issues with the article, editors should try to fix the issue or place an appropriate maintenance tag so that other editors are aware, rather than pressing the nuclear button to delete the article. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pep Love

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

Questionable notoriety. Only one source which is an interview, therefore a primary source.. not enough to establish notoriety SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the Hierophyphics article, seems to be only known in relation to that group. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His debut album received some attention from mainstream sources, plus there's this from Billboard. Not sure if that's enough for a standalone page.-KH-1 (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The helper5667 (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1887)

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

Stub article about a little known soccer player with only three sources that don't make him seem particularly noteworthy. I also did some digging outside and I still didn't find much about him. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The helper5667 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ignorant nomination. This is a player who made 28 appearances in the English Football League, the premier competition at that time - and of course you're going to struggle to find online sources about someone born in 1887! Did you look in the Newspaper archives? Giant Snowman 10:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not to be confused with the Bobby Brown's born in the 20th century. I'd be shocked if this player wasn't notable, as was playing in the top tier of English football in the 1907–08 season.[56] There would have been plenty of coverage from numerous sources at that time, difficult to find but would be easy to establish notability with the right sources given popularity of English football back then. CNC (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Whitney Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Awards, and Latter Day Saints. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.

Previous discussions: 2009-08 (closed as ✓ keep)

Related discussions: 2017-08 Traci Hunter Abramson (closed as ✓ keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Lots of coverage in the Deseret News, and some in scholarly journals [57], and here, but this is more of a mention [58]. Oaktree b (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, all available sources such as Deseret News are LSD-affiliated (so "lots of coverage" over there do not count for notability). The journal link above is literally a sentence in a note. Nothing close to significant coverage in neutral secondary reliable sources. Cavarrone 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Hunter, J. Michael (2013). Mormons and Popular Culture: Mormons and Popular Culture The Global Influence of an American Phenomenon. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio. pp. 61–62. ISBN 978-0-313-39168-2. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "In addition, LDStorymakers sponsors and hosts the Whitney Awards Academy, founded in 2007 by author Robison Wells. Novels are nominated throughout the year by readers and then voted on by retailers, editors, authors, and other LDS publishing professionals. Awards are given in various genres and for Best Novel of the Year and Best Novel by a New Author. The Whitney award program is named after 19th-century Home Literature proponent Orson F. Whitney, and the organization uses a well-known Whitney quote as its motto: "We will yet have Miltons and Shakespeares of our own." The Whitney awards recognize novels by all kinds of Mormon authors, including those publishing in the national market. While the program arose from the LDS popular fiction side of the cultural divide, some Mormon literary works have been honored with top awards, including the novels Road to Heaven by Coke Newell (Zarahemla Books, 2007) and Bound on Earth by Angela Hallstrom (Parables Publishing, 2008); both of these titles also received the AML's top novel award in their respective years."
2. Clark, Cody (2009-05-02). "Whitney Awards honor best in LDS fiction". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Orson F. Whitney ... The Whitney Awards were established in honor of Whitney's vision, to encourage the growth of Latter-day Saint literature. On April 25, the group announced the winners of its awards for work published in 2008. The big winner is Sandra Grey, who claimed the Best Novel of the Year prize for "Traitor," in which a woman goes to France during World War II to join the French Resistance. Angela Hallstrom won the Best Novel by a New Author prize for "Bound on Earth." Other winners are ... The Whitney Awards, begun in 2007, are bestowed annually."
3. Rappleye, Christine (2018-05-12). "And the winners for the Whitney Awards on its 10th anniversary are ..." Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The Deseret News is owned by a subsidiary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). I consider it to be sufficiently independent of the Whitney Awards, which is put on by LDSStorymakers, to help to contribute to notability if there are sources non-affiliated with the LDS that cover the topic. The article notes: "Fifty-one novels, the works of 50 authors, were named as finalists across 10 categories for the awards that recognize novels by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is the 10th anniversary of the Whitney Awards. ... In the youth categories, “By Your Side” by Kasie West won the young adult general category. “Ones and Zeroes” by Dan Wells and “Blood Rose Rebellion” by Rosalyn Eves were the winners in the young adult speculative and young adult fantasy categories, respectively. ... Author Robison Wells received the Outstanding Achievement Award. He founded the Whitney Awards in 2007 and is the past president of the Whitney Wards. ... The Whitney Awards were founded by Wells in 2007 and named after early LDS apostle Orson F. Whitney."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Clark, Cody (2007-06-30). "Awards for LDS authors". Daily Herald. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    The article notes: "Orson F. Whitney, an early apostle of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ... LDSStorymakers and author Robison Wells announced earlier this month the creation of an award for LDS writers in Whitney's name. The first Whitney Awards, for works published in 2007, will be handed out at the LDSStorymakers annual conference next spring. LDSStorymakers is a group created to encourage the growth of writing and publication among Latter-day Saints. Wells is a resident of West Jordan and the author of three novels published by Covenant Communications."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Whitney Awards to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institutionalist political economy

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

This page largely duplicates the content of the Institutional Economics (IE) page. It states that Institutionalist political economy (IPE) builds upon institutional economics, but does not make clear how it does so. The only writers mentioned by name in the article are key institutionalist economists who already appear in the IE page: Veblen, Commons, Mitchell, etc. Even more significantly, the article does not provide clear evidence that IPE is an accepted term with a meaning that is distinct from IE. Among the cited references, only Ha-Joon Chang's 2002 article uses the phrase "Institutionalist Political Economy." The other articles seem to apply institutionalism in various senses to political economy, but do not establish a school of thought called "Institutionalist Political Economy." Googling "Institutionalist Political Economy" strengthens the sense that this is not an established school of thought: the first page results show a handful of articles by writers (especially Chang and Streeck) trying to claim the term in recent years, but no encyclopedia entries or news articles suggesting that their efforts have succeeded. Nor is it clear that Chang and Streeck are engaged in the same project or members of the same school. (Streeck 2010 does not even cite Chang 2002, for example.) Finally, to the extent that consistency across Wikipedia is a relevant consideration, I would note that I attempted to create a "Legal institutionalism" page about a year ago -- because there are, in fact, a number of writers who refer to themselves as "legal institutionalists" and who belong to a relatively coherent school of thought (Hodgson, Deakin, Pistor, etc.). A reviewer rejected the attempt. The reviewer's reasons would seem to apply even more strongly (or at least equally well) to the existing "Institutionalist political economy" than they did to the proposed "Legal institutionalism": "It's not clear to me that this is a coherent concept that really differs from Institutionalist political economy and Institutional economics. I understand that source #1 is trying to make that argument, but do the other sources? Some of the sources, such as #6 and #10, do not even contain the term legal institutionalism. And there are other sources that seem to use the term in a different way, as part of legal theory rather than economics." If a "Legal institutionalism" page is inappropriate, then a fortiori it seems as though an "Institutionalist political economy" page is inappropriate. RLHale (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Savage

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

This article on science fiction author Marshall Savage seems to fall short of WP's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) for inclusion. To the extent that this author is notable, it is for his book, The Millennial Project which has its own WP article, and for founding the First Millennial Foundation, which is covered in the book's article. The body of this article is without references and is filled with minute autobiographical-type details. This article has had January 2024 {{BLP sources}} and {{original research}} tags for almost a year now. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dotyoyo (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that can be sourced and is worth covering to The Millenial Project - couldn't find anything of substance that wasn't covering the book Iostn (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging into The Millenial Project, but others might find something worthy. The section called Writing career mentions an article he wrote, and a couple of incomplete projects he's worked on. But these are all unsourced and, IMO, non-notable. Dotyoyo (talk) 11:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The Millenial Project is not an existing article so it can't be a Merge target article. Any other arguments for what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Millennial Project (note the correct spelling is with two ns). Though the subject may be notable, the vast majority of the article is unsourced and I don't see any sourced content worth merging. If sources are found, the redirect can be reverted. Jfire (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colette Kaminski

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database source in the article is a student newspaper from the school the subject attended, and a search for additional sources came up empty. Please ping me if additional secondary sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some pretty good coverage here under her nickname. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Lan Qing

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

Because the source is not independent and significant enough. Also, the person who created this article is closely related to this person or wrote it himself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimike yep (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to be a notable artist. A GScholar search for "Zhu Lanqing" (which appears to be a more common romanization of her name) finds several academic reviews of her work, especially her photobook, A Journey in Reverse Direction (负向的旅程), including Figlio (International Journal of Asian Studies), Tung (Trans Asia Photography), and Frank (ArtAsiaPacific). She also won the Three Shadows Award in 2014, which appears to be quite prestigious. I'm quite sure that someone fluent in Chinese could find even more sigcov. pburka (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. The sources found by Pburka.
2. Shi, Yangkun (2024-02-24). Morgan, Dominic (ed.). "An Island in Time: Capturing Dongshan's Disappearing History. Like many parts of rural China, the southern isle's rich local culture is quickly being erased as the country modernizes. But photographer Zhu Lanqing is determined to rescue what she can". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "This self-portrait is the opening photograph from Zhu Lanqing’s “A Journey in Reverse Direction” — a project in which the young artist delves deep into the fast-disappearing local culture of her home town in southeastern China. ... Preserving the past has been a lifelong obsession for the 29-year-old, who grew up during the height of China’s economic boom and witnessed firsthand how unfettered development can undermine communities and erase local cultures. Zhu was born and raised on Dongshan Island, a tiny collection of isles in the Taiwan Strait famous mainly for being the site of a series of battles during the tail end of the Chinese Civil War. ... After graduating from high school, Zhu also left her hometown, heading to Beijing to study photojournalism at Renmin University of China. Over the following years, however, she kept returning to Dongshan with her camera."
3. Luo, Peixin 羅培新 (2015-12-18). "漳州女攝影師朱嵐清捧走"集美·阿爾勒發現獎"20萬獎金" [Zhangzhou Female Photographer Zhu Lanqing Wins the 'Jimei·Arles Discovery Award' with a 200,000 Yuan Prize]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2016-03-13. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "12月16日下午，這一承載著朱嵐清獨特而敏感鄉愁視點的作品斬獲“集美·阿爾勒國際攝影季”發現獎，捧走20萬元的獎金，創下目前國內單項攝影獎最高的獎金紀錄。"
  From Google Translate: "On the afternoon of 16 December, this work, which carries Zhu Lanqing's unique and sensitive perspective on nostalgia, won the "Jimei·Arles International Photography Season" Discovery Award, taking home a bonus of 200,000 yuan, setting a record for the highest bonus for a single photography award in China."
  The article notes: "這是出生於1991年的朱嵐清的創作初衷。2008年起，朱嵐清從漳州一中畢業，考上中國人民大學新聞攝影專業。遠離從小長大的東山島，她心中才有故鄉的概念。在鄉愁的觸動下，她產生了用相機記錄故鄉的想法。一開始，她並沒有特別明確的計劃，只是通過不斷地行走在東山各個角落，用鏡頭去認識、去發現。"
  From Google Translate: "This is birth Zhu Lanqing’s original creative intention in 1991. Since 2008, Zhu Lanqing graduated from Zhangzhou No. 1 Middle School and was admitted to Renmin University of China majoring in news photography. Far away from Dongshan Island, where she grew up, she has the concept of hometown in her heart. Touched by nostalgia, she came up with the idea of recording her hometown with a camera. At the beginning, she did not have a particularly clear plan. She just kept walking in every corner of Dongshan and used the lens to understand and discover."
4. Feng, Ge 封戈 (2016-02-03). "90后女摄影师朱岚清：负向的旅行，与过去的对话" [Post-90s Female Photographer Zhu Lanqing: A Negative Journey, A Dialogue with the Past]. 北青周刊 [Beijing Youth Weekly] (in Chinese). ISSN 1005-3549. Archived from the original on 2016-03-25. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "朱岚清是一个1991 年出生的女孩。2014 年，她凭借作品《负向的旅程》斩获第六届三影堂摄影奖。2015 年，又夺得集美·阿尔勒发现奖。"
  From Google Translate: "Zhu Lanqing is a girl born in 1991. In 2014, she won the 6th Three Shadows Photography Award with her work "Negative Journey". In 2015, she won the Jimei Arles Discovery Award."
  The article notes: "因为远离家乡去北京上学，朱岚清利用每次寒暑假回家的机会拍摄她的故乡——福建省漳州市东山县的东山岛。 ... 朱岚清的妈妈在当地旅游局工作，小时候朱岚清经常是从家里的那些旅游宣传册去认识东山岛的。决定拍摄家乡这个项目之后，朱岚清首先买了一张地图，开始去到周边一些陌生的地方。"
  From Google Translate: "Because she went to school in Beijing far away from her hometown, Zhu Lanqing took the opportunity to go home every winter and summer vacation to shoot her hometown-Dongshan Island in Dongshan County, Zhangzhou City, Fujian Province. ... Zhu Lanqing's mother works in the local tourism bureau. When she was a child, Zhu Lanqing often learned about Dongshan Island from the tourist brochures at home. After deciding to shoot the hometown project, Zhu Lanqing first bought a map and started to go to some unfamiliar places around."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhu Lanqing (simplified Chinese: 朱岚清; traditional Chinese: 朱嵐清) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. No deletion rationale provided here. Nominator should gain some editing experience before participating in AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confiscation

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

I had no idea,but theres already dictionary for the meaning and history in other website,should this be keep or delete?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeleteOnlyExperiment (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Law. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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