Wikipedia:XfD today

Shortcuts

This page transcludes all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Speedy deletion candidates

Candidates for speedy deletion

Redirects transliterated from non-English-language terms

Articles

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 10	January 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Christine Egan

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

Apart from being there at 9/11 and dying, there is nothing notable about this person's career. Was a working nurse. No lasting notability, 25 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethereum Virtual Machine File System

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

Fails WP:GNG. Crypto software sourced only to its developer, no reliable source coverage to speak of. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 21:35, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of new content has been added since this article's nomination so i'm going to relist it so it can be evaluated. it would also be nice to hear from the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Bosson

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

Local politician; fails WP:NPOL — Moriwen (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. — Moriwen (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the current position is notable, sounds like a civil servant. Running in an election isn't notable. Sourcing isn't quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Priestly Union Marcel Lefebvre

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

Minor schism of a schism, not notable. None of the sources actually appear to mention the Priestly Union. Anything worthwhile can be merged into Richard Williamson (bishop). — Moriwen (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence it passes GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are again, a year after the fourth deletion discussion was closed as Delete. Speedy was declined so we are here to decide yet once again if this meets notability guidelines. Nothing since the last AfD shows notability. Note that most of the press is from reliable sources, but it is all similar to this which is unreliable churnalism and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone from the last deletion discussion to see if they see anything I don't as far as notability that has taken place since this was closed in 2023. @Worldiswide:, @Mooonswimmer:, @Edwardx:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS, but trivial coverage, barely anything beyond a paragraph. This [1] is about what you find, celebrity shares photos. This [2] is barely longer than a paragraph. We don't have enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Feltham (curling)

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Canadian curler, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2031 FIFA Women's World Cup Qualification (AFC)

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Could be retargeted to 2031 FIFA Women's World Cup as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no enough information available from sources to create a well-sourced article about this, it's generally best to wait until more information becomes available. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect clearly WP:TOOSOON. The redirect target makes sense, though. SportingFlyer T·C 20:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2028 AFC Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournament

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Could also be retargeted to 2028 Summer Olympics as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This same user keeps recreating articles under TOOSOON, please kindly delete.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Asia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taaid

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

Only source appears to be a self-published site. No further sources on Lebanese wiki. — Moriwen (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moriwen, Quick question, since this is a physical location, and appears on multiple reliable weather sources, does it not seem to count? I'm just curious. if there's any WP guideline for for locations, please kindly drop so I can read. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese Eucharistic Youth Movement

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

Not notable; no independent sources. Vietnamese wiki article doesn't appear to offer any either. — Moriwen (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Vietnam. — Moriwen (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mary of the Snows (Mansfield, Ohio)

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

Not notable; local sources only — Moriwen (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Ohio. — Moriwen (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both GEO and NFEAT. All reliable sources are local and either for ortbituary or church related events. No significant coverage. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Phachi collision

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The event doesn't appear to have much coverage after it originally occured, failing WP:LASTING. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV. The event is only published by one reliable source Bangkokpost twice. I find it very hard to get more reports about this event even upon all reverse searches. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:06, 11 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]

The difference is that the ACC and Big 10 are sports conferences. The term "Ivy League" pre-dates the athletic conference with the same name and has a specific meaning with regards to a type of college and a type of education. It is not an artificial grouping with regards to the discussion of academics. Rublamb (talk) 19:54, 11 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]
Just a note that there have been two other AFDs on this article when it had a different page title:

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Through her extensive research, Hydrangeans (talk · contribs) has shown that "Ivy League business schools" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources". This source from the peer-reviewed journal California Management Review that Hydrangeans listed says (and which was released under the free license CC BY 4.0) says:
But where those MBA degrees were earned mattered more. 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. There were five Ivy MBA programs in 1955 (Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Wharton). It is difficult to trace back the size of those Ivy League programs in that period, but it is not too difficult to imagine that they accounted for a considerable share of the 3,300 total degrees that year: If the Ivy programs were even half the size that they are now—they total 3,680 graduates in 2021 (with the addition of Yale, which added an MBA degree later)—they would still account for more than half of all MBA degrees around 1955 when the 1980 cohort would have access to them. But they should be a trivial share by the end of the period given the massive growth in MBA programs that came from new programs at other schools.
Even if we assume that the Ivy programs were the same size in 1980, 1991, and 2001 as they are today, they would have represented only 8% of MBAs in the 2001 population, 5% in 2011, and 3.6% in the 2021 population. What we see instead, though, is striking. In 1980, the elite MBA programs associated with Ivy League institutions accounted for 45% of those degrees for the executives in our sample, roughly in line with our guess as to their percentage of all MBA degrees 25 years earlier. By 2001, however, Ivy degrees represented less than 8% of all MBA degrees (calculations based on 1976 data) and yet they still accounted for 25% of the MBAs for the top executives in the Fortune 100. In 2011, Ivy degrees accounted for 5% of all MBA degrees awarded in the United States and 23% of MBA degrees in the Fortune 100 executive ranks. In 2021, the share of Ivy degrees dropped to 3.6% but remained at 23% in our sample. (The decline in elite MBA degrees among the top executives was mostly offset by a rise in the percentage of MBA degrees from state universities in the United States, from 18% in 1980 to 31% in 2021.) In short, even though the share of Ivy MBA grads declined, the preference for them had to have increased dramatically given how much rarer they were in the population.
This is but one example that shows that Ivy League business schools have been studied in academic sources. Cunard (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully we get some better discussion without some obvious SPAs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this isn't being closed. Apparently, this is the 6th nomination with the prior five ending in "keep". The SPA's odd participation aside, enough potential sources have been identified above to show that this article can easily be improved, removing any questions about notability. Rublamb (talk) 19:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The sources presented do not seem sufficient in my judgment and I agree with Jjazz76 that they do appear to be passing mentions insufficient to grant independent notability. ElKevbo (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Immaculate High School

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

No indication of notability under WP:NORG. A single Primary Source to the school's website. A search of the web brings up local newspapers with GCSE results, new buildings being opened, but no significant non-routine coverage. Article was recently replaced with promotional unsourced text by a self-disclosed paid editor. qcne (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)<o/span>} 17:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How was the article able to last a decade on Wikipedia without any Significant Coverage?? Clearly fails WP:NORG and appears to be a promotional article. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Pakistan Nuclear Treaty

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

This article is a poor attempt at pushing a lone fringe opinion of a single professor into a full blown topic. This article is also misrepresenting the sources to portray his opinion as an actual proposal with seemingly promotional prose. In short, this article is at worse a hoax and not at all notable. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Military, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

9 September massacres

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

Little to no content. Merge any relevant content to September Massacres. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and France. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The event was obviously notable, but the article appears to be a duplicate or re-targeted at September Massacres, I suggest to merge or redirect to the main article,SM. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to September Massacres#Killings outside Paris . Probably notable but there is no information here and that section summarizes what happened better than this does. No opposition to an article being actually written in the future, but as is this is less informative than just linking there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türk Telecom İzmir Cup

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

When I click the reference it says ‘This request was blocked by our security service’ even though I am in Turkey. The Turkish article is also tagged as uncited and their external link also does not work. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 11 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. [3] 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]
It doesn't guarantee notability, it's a sign the person could be notable. The Spotify charts aren't ones we use for notability and there is no other sourcing for any sort of charting... We can't use any of these. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 11 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]
Removing non-notable information makes notable information easier to find in the encyclopedia, so the question is it notable enough to include, or should we ask those people to search other databases? I have no particular opinion, other than that if kept the article be neutralized and affixed with a different tag. -- Beland (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 11 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]
I don't know if this would help, but there seems to be significant coverage of the institution from The Canberra Times, located here [4] 2024 is Underway (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this article [5]? There are a couple of other Canberra Times articles but they seem to just quote an ELICOS Association spokesperson. It's definitely something, but the coverage is still very, very thin IMO - we've got an article from 1992 that spends a couple of paragraphs saying the organisation exists and is unhappy about a policy, and an article from 2023 in a relatively obscure publication saying that it's celebrating its 40th anniversary. Possibly it scrapes by on those two sources, but I'm not 100% convinced by the Canberra Times article - the article is mostly about the policy issue and all it really says about the ELICOS Association is that it isn't happy about it, so I'm not really sure it qualifies as SIGCOV of the ELICOS Association. MCE89 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a compelling point, but I did manage to find this [6]. The organisation seemed to have an annual conference in the 1990s, which they documented heavily, with each year having a book that is over 200 pages. And they seemed to have reports from other companies made for them [7], [8]. I believe the contents of these reports could lead to notability. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can consider those towards notability - they're reports that English Australia/the ELICOS Association commissioned or published, so they don't qualify as secondary sources independent of the subject. Unless there's secondary coverage of their conferences or conference proceedings in reliable sources, which I wasn't able to find on Trove, I don't think it gets us any closer to WP:GNG unfortunately. MCE89 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly suggest that this article be kept due to be coverage it provides on Education for overseas students, it could be merged into Education in Australia under a new sub section named something along the lines of "Overseas students" because it is "designed for students who need to learn English before commencing formal studies in Australia" which would be significant to the articles subject. But it would be better to remain as a separate article. 2024 is Underway (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 11 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call-Me Kevin

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:NBASIC; didn't find any reliable sources that contain significant coverage of him. Most references in the article currently don't establish notability of O'Reilly and are either not reliable or not in-depth coverage of him. ~ Tails Wx 16:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't normally weigh-in on YouTuber AfD discussions (as they often seem to rely on relative perceptions of "fame"). However, the sources in this article are woeful. Effectively all are primary sources. Where the subject(s) own YouTube statements are relied upon as fact. While this might just about be "OK" in the context of WP:ABOUTSELF, it is not "OK" (certainly not in establishing notability) that effectively all of the sources are self-published/self-statements. The handful of secondary sources in the article are barely brief passing mentions. And are placed alongside text that they unequivocally do not support. Like those screenrant.com and thegamer.com webpages - which do not support the text of the "collaborations" section they are placed within. At all. Not even close. It's hard to offer an objective AfD recommendation in the face of this type of WP:REFBOMBing. Guliolopez (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that a draft, Draft:Call Me Kevin, has been created/declined/deleted/recreated several times. And that Call Me Kevin (without the oddly placed "-" character in the title under discussion) was also previously deleted. Guliolopez (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in RS in the article, hardly anything at length that I can find. This [9] is fine, but it's only a paragraph in a list of other Irish people. Oaktree b (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir–Denizli Regional

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

Tagged 5 years ago as uncited and I cannot find it on https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/tr/ana_hat_trenleri Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kunming City F.C.

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

No indication of importance. Sources provided are all routine coverage. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone do a search in Chinese? It's a new football club which just got promoted and they're one league away in the pyramid from being almost certainly notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fluent in Chinese and have written articles about Chinese football. I fail to see how the club meets GNG as of right now. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON? IDontHaveSkype (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could very well be, they are brand new. SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing Rich F.C.

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

No indication of importance. The four references provided all do not have the club as the primary topic. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xinjiang Snowland Tiancheng F.C.

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

No indication of importance. The three references provided all do not have the club as their primary topic. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. IDontHaveSkype (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources used don't show this meets WP:GNG. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Coppen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Albums and songs, and Indonesia. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Does not show enough Notability to be included in mainspace. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheslyn Hay South

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

Is there anything that gives this orphan stub about a Staffordshire ward Notability? The sourcing looks very weak. If needed at all, can it not be merged into Cheslyn Hay? KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of these have been kept. Many US place articles were created with similar content from the census. The article could be expanded with information about elections. I removed the reference that failed verification - the other sources were enough. Peter James (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you again. KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonerby Hill Foot

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

Is there anything making this Lincolnshire suburb notable? To me the sourcing looks extremely weak. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grantham - it's a neighbourhood which doesn't quite meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsler, Indiana

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

A rail point, one gathers to serve the once-neighboring mine. Get hits on the name but not on the place. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Butler

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

Non-notable model. Declined at AfC but moved into the main space regardless. Sources don't come even close to establishing notability, and BEFORE search finds only social media, agency listings, etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, United Kingdom, and England. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: It looks like there might be some coverage, but this article is in no state to be in mainspace yet. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Paliukh

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

Non-notable football (fails GNG) ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Ukraine. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any coverage, fails GNG. CNC (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lough Gowna Valley

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

Non-notable book by a non-notable author whose name is a redlink in the article. Its entry at goodreads.com contains no review and just a single reader's two-star rating (out of five). In the only slightly significant review I found at The Irish Times where it was briefly sketched among other books, the reviewer described it as "a highly opinionated work, laced with discursive and distracting digressions" which demand "forbearance" from the reader. Otherwise seems to have sunk without trace. Judging by study of the article creator's brief edit history, there are hints that the article may have been created by the book's author. Spideog (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. In my own WP:BEFORE I could find almost nothing. Even a generous Google search returns barely 20 results. Effectively just this article, its mirrors, a (sparse) "goodreads" entry and Amazon listings. The only "news" coverage found is this local piece in the local Longford Leader. Which is about as far from significant coverage as it is possible to get. It does not help (as noted by the nominator) that this article was almost certainly created as a part of a series of COI/NOTPROMO edits by a contributor who had a connection to this book or its author. Guliolopez (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke School shooting

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

Hmm, fails WP:LASTING. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, not a hugely significant event (no fatalities bar the shooter) & does not seem to have generated any lasting coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable, haven’t checked for sources, merge to the school article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edmund Burke School#2022 shooting. There isn't nothing and some of the coverage is quite in depth but this is a good target and the coverage isn't enough as to warrant more than that. This actually was a redirect until last month. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Ynez Reservoir

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

WP:ONEEVENT.... while this policy applies explicitly to people, I see no reason this shouldn't be applied more broadly. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike natural lakes, reservoirs are not usually notable. To the extent that this one may attract passing attention, it is not the reservoir that is notable but a shortage of water to cope with a major conflagration, an urban administration story and a story about the enormity of the fire, rather than one about the water-filled hole. To the extent that it may count, it can be mentioned in the fire article. The shortage of fire engines and firefighters, and the fact that aircraft could not fight the fire during excessive wind speeds do not require separate articles either. Spideog (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a bunch of news coverage of the reservoir pre-dating the fire that is available on Newspapers.com. Article needs to be buffed up so that it's not just about the fire, but the reservoir is notable enough. Seems to meet WP:GNG/WP:GEOFEAT. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's dozens more articles available on Newspapers.com going back decades covering the history of the reservoir. It definitely meets GNG requirements, it's just we didn't have an article made until now and this recent event prompted someone to make it. But it definitely is not a single event subject. Silver seren^C 18:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been expanded since the deletion nomination, and now includes significant coverage from before the 2025 Palisades Fire. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 20:36, 11 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 Withdraw 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timon and Pumbaa

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

Did WP:BEFORE, but found mostly about the film and passing mentions. This character doesn't even have reception, thus failing WP:GNG. A source like this [10] doesn't help. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:21, 11 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!🍕 (🔔) 13:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the current state of the article, I must say that it seems rather unlikely that this character duo would not have WP:Significant coverage in WP:Reliable sources. I note that a number of sources are cited in the "Development" section—are these not fit for purpose? TompaDompa (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References 4 and 6 I think for me wouldn't be enough for notability. If we gonna rely on that, then I don't think we can have proper reception section about this duo; unless more scholar sources have been found that talks about the characters. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What are your thoughts on the search results on JSTOR for Timon and Pumbaa (without quotation marks) and Timon and Pumba (one "a" in "Pumba" instead of two)? TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source provided below was significant, perhaps I was blinded by the article's current state. My Apology. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Boneless Pizza!: Did WP:BEFORE, but found mostly about the film and passing mentions. How can that be when one of the first hits in the required Google Books search is Diversity in Disney Films, which has pages of discussion of the characters? Could you please comment on this source and how you went on further with your WP:BEFORE search from there? Daranios (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was embarrassing. Maybe I should learn how to do WP:BEFORE at google books next time. Sometimes, it doesn't pop up. Oh well, my bad. I'll withdraw this nomination. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

First Mile

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

No sign of the required 3 articles to pass WP:GNG, only the Times article has limited coverage of the company, and might be considered non WP:ROUTINE press. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too much uncited content, much of which looks like a commercial, or likely to be marketing prose originating from the company. Spideog (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There is insufficient evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Gedaali (talk) 20:36, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not apparent and too much uncited content. Spideog (talk) 13:54, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the "trivial" assessment by the nominator. Its apparent randomness looks like an invitation to open the floodgates to articles for any number. The Star Trek reference is a pitiful clutching at empty air. Spideog (talk) 15:06, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have this lists of films of a genre all the time, because oftentimes the amount of notable films (and I am SPECIFICALLY referring to those) is so high that WP:SPLITING is a good option. The existence of categories means about as much as $100,000 to a billionaire, and discographies of artists should be deleted by this logic, since each artist has category pages for their songs and albums. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research — as the nominator says, it's a hodge-podge list of POV additions of what "feels" right, and doing it right (or doing correctly anything similar to this) would basically involve blowing it up and starting from scratch. The source on JSTOR provided above actually illustrates the problem rather well. Their "top 10" list is based on a survey of "economics educators" about "films that they found most useful in teaching economics". At number 2 is A Beautiful Mind; at number 9 is Cast Away. Is it actually meaningful to put these on a list of "economics films"? No. No it is not. In their honorable mentions, at number 13 we find Office Space, and at 15, Pretty Woman. In short, the mere fact that a teacher has used a movie to illustrate some economic concept does not mean that the movie is part of an "economics films" genre. The topic of economics in film could be addressed in an encyclopedic way, but this isn't even the start of doing that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:15, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 11 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 [11] [12] [13], 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:14, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:13, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 11 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]
I have no interest in improving firearms articles. My purpose is simply to either drop the notability tag or drop the article, to clear out the decision queue. If we keep, it can be retagged as needing more sources. -- Beland (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Iqubal

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

Not a notable entrepreneur. Possible WP:BLP1E (Participation in Shark Tank India). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 11 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]
Hello @Ibjaja055,

I would like to kindly request that we reconsider the potential deletion of the Tobi Asehinde article, as I believe it now better aligns with Wikipedia's notability and content guidelines. Recent improvements have been made to strengthen the article with additional independent, verifiable sources and detailed context on his professional achievements, philanthropy, and impact in the digital marketing industry.
Key Improvements
1. Enhanced References: The article now includes third-party sources such as BusinessDay NG, Vanguard, and TechCity, which highlight Asehinde’s contributions to the global digital skills market and the creation of job-matching platforms for African talent.
2. Increased Context on Leadership Roles: Detailed information on his leadership within the Nigeria-Britain Association and other organizations has been added to show his broader influence beyond his business ventures.
3. Relevant Links to Related Topics: The updated article connects Asehinde’s work to the ecosystem of African digital entrepreneurs, linking it to figures like Sim Shagaya and Abasi Ene-Obong, improving its integration with related Wikipedia content.
Notability Criteria

Asehinde’s significant contributions to education technology, job creation, and youth empowerment align with Wikipedia's guidelines for notable entrepreneurs and business leaders. His work addresses key global challenges in employment and digital skills development, and he has received recognition in reputable publications.

I believe these improvements make the article more balanced, verifiable, and informative. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this discussion and respect the consensus-driven process. Thank you for your time and consideration. MercifulEmma (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Task Force: Ghost Team

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

The article fails WP:GNG and it is full of WP:FANCRAFT. The article cites unreliable sources including the COD wiki and GameRant. IDK if this IGN Wiki is consider RS but I don't think so in my opinion but none the less still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not FANDOM, and the article fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't appear that the article title is even the correct name, so not a plausible redirect. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Abel

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

Does not meet WP:BIO, in particular notability AncientWalrus (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AncientWalrus (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is just a businessman's curriculum vitae. No-one even saw fit to create an article for him in German Wikipedia. Spideog (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and German wikipedia has much lower standards for pretty much everything compared to EN AncientWalrus (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 1400

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

None notable accident. Does not seem to have a WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING effect and the no fatalities nor injuries does not help either. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Aviation. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A scary day aloft for crew and passengers but it should be filed as one of countless daily mechanical aviation incidents which never achieve lasting notability. Spideog (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with comments above by Spideog Asteramellus (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lanemeyer

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

This band does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music). Citations included seem minor and insubstantial. Spideog (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso–Iran relations

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

its not notable enough to warrant an article of its own; maybe it can be included as part of Foreign relations of Burkina Faso. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually seems to be a much more significant relationship than I would have guessed. There have been a number of state visits, and they've signed several agreements and MoUs ([14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] - not saying these are all necessarily RS for the purposes of assessing notability, just useful for getting a sense of whether a meaningful bilateral relationship exists between the two countries). There also seems to be a growing trade relationship. Not the most notable pair of countries, sure, but I think it's more than enough. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The remark "not the most notable pair of countries" is dismissive of two nation states. They may not matter to the previous commenter, User:Spiderone (even if s/he decided to Keep), but they are notable to both populations, and this article is part of a series of similar articles for other nations. If the article did not exist, it would need to be created. Spideog (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa

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

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOL. Simply being a flag bearer of a political party in an election does not inherently establish notability. I proposed a deletion few days ago, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ghana. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody I was the one who created the article and I did not remove the tag for deletion. Check your facts right before making an accusation. daSupremo

18:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaSupremo, I'm really sorry about that mix up. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Describing her merely as a "flagbearer" (a vague, unrevealing term) obscures her significance as described in the article. She was the National Chairperson of the Convention People's Party. She won a Presidential Primary. She was also named Female Politician of the Year in Ghana. Her notability appears much clearer than this misleading nomination reveals. Spideog (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Spideog for your input daSupremo

19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Oumar Dia

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's a sad incident but many murders happen every year in the United States, and this one does not demonstrate lasting significance as required by our policies.4meter4 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This murder is significant because of the barefaced and admitted racism motive. The murderer said he "saw the black guy and thought he didn't belong where he was at" (at a bus stop). He continued, ""How easy it would be to take him out right there, ... Didn't seem like much to me" and "In a war, anybody wearing the enemy's uniform [black skin] is an enemy and should be taken out, ... I guess I was kind of thinking about him because he was black". Also, the article describes "Protests occurred in the Denver area following the killing", conferring wider community significance. The attack also left a bystander paralysed. Spideog (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spideog How is racism a significant motive under WP:EVENTCRIT? The hate crimes statistics at the United States Department of Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center indicate shockingly large numbers of racist motivated attacks. This is not an unusual motivation, sadly, for murder. Further brief protests without WP:SUSTAINED or wide coverage are not unusual. We need to see WP:DIVERSE sourcing across time to indicate notability.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SIGCOV in several academic works, re-analyzing the events even past the initial breaking news period, passing at least #1 and #2 of EVENTCRIT (very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards). See [21] [22] [23], probably more. There was also a full article in Esquire magazine a year after the murder about it, which I think is pretty solid [24] and a retrospective magazine article [25] from 5280. The coverage at the time was also pretty extensive. While the motive itself does not make it notable, the motive tends to lead to more in depth coverage. There was also a bunch of other coverage in 2010s, this altogether demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED and WP:INDEPTH coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to swing a baseball bat

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

WP:NOTGUIDE '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems to be a page that tells instructions, instead of being an encyclopedic page. KOLANO12 3 09:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete this just looks like spam/vandalism. Orange sticker (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I realise now this doesn't quite meet any of the criteria in WP:ACSD or WP:GCSD for speedy deletion but it's still a clear delete. Orange sticker (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to WP:NOTGUIDE. Spideog (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTGUIDE. This is not encyclopedic content in any way shape or form. Frank Anchor 17:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abrams (criminal)

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2017. Not clear the subject meet WP:GNG or is compliant with WP:CRIMINAL.4meter4 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. No inline citations whatsoever. Spideog (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Durian Industries

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:NCORP, the sources cited here lack WP:CORPDEPTH and are press releases and undisclosed sponsored articles as per WP:NEWSORGINDIA because they only have generic bylines and all of them have promotional tone, therefore not independent of the subject as required by WP:SIRS. Also noting that this article was created before by the same author and deleted then as well. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hasn't improved since it's last two deletions, all references are Promotions to company's products also article content do not show what's so important about the company, just some cheap promotions (i.e In May, 1995, Sajjan Dokania set up India's very first decorative veneer manufacturing facility in Palghar, Maharashtra. In 2017, Durian introduced leather in sofa manufacturing. Durian started delivering to over 7000+ pin codes, country-wide.).ANU^writes 10:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the nominator in the last deletion discussion. Nothing has changed since the last AfD so still fails notability. Clearly UPE as well and would suggest protecting the title. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vishnu V Raj

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

My WP:BEFORE searches turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage such as to establish or support the subject's notability. Furthermore, I note that a similar article Vishnu V. Raj, created by the same editor with largely the same content, was deleted via BLPPROD on 8 January, having also remained completely unsourced. With the agreement of WWGB who nominated this article for BLPPROD, I chose to take it to AfD for a more permanent consensus decision. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to support the content. Author appears to have close connection with the subject. Previously PRODed. WWGB (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think I restored the BLPPROD tag last week after the author removed it without adding a source. I wasn't able to find any SIGCOV either, and given that the subject of the article is only a party official for a minor party (that itself looks to be of questionable notability?) I see no indication that they meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civionics

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

Invented discipline which is very uncommon and does not pass any notability tests. Most GS hits are for a company with this name, very little secondary sourcing. It was AfD'd in 2008 and retained them based upon the argument that it was a "nascent discipline" and had a few sources. 16 years later it can no longer be considered nascent, it is a failed neologism. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This minor (attempted?) neologism doesn't appear to have taken significant hold of the public imagination. At best, it might merit inclusion as a minor, restricted jargon in Wiktionary? But I'm not even convinced of that. Spideog (talk) 11:48, 11 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 [[26]] (although it does not pass WP:YOUNGATH, it still provides additional context to the subject). The subject also enough coverage at [[27]], [[28]], [[29]] and [[30]] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 11 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: [31] [32] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability is established. The title "Prince" merely reflects his position in a bloodline. No achievements whatsoever are documented, and the article consists merely of documenting who his relatives were. He appears to have been a nonentity of privileged birth whose existence left no footprint. Spideog (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: [33] [34]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 11 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]

I did look, and saw nothing, hence the nomination. E_F⁵ 13:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although Wikipedia defines itself as a gazetteer as well as an encyclopaedia and, as such, localities and even minor settlements can be registered, this stub tells us nothing about the location except that it exists and where it is, so it offers no apparent value to the reader. It is too meagre, scanty, and useless to survive, even as a stub. Spideog (talk) 12:11, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Talk:Raegan Revord#Requested move 19 December 2024, this title was previously salted and the subject's notability is doubful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award[35] and a nomination at Young Artist Award [36] thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANU^writes 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Wikipedia article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Wikipedia entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Wikipedia failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with your arguments (and love your passion). I definitely think the draft should be merged because what's currently there is kind of weak, but a cursory look at the draft looks like it has more information and sources. So, I say keep the article and merge it with the draft. (I'm still semi-new to wikipedia (especially since I don't use it all that often), so I can't say I know all the rules (of which there seem to be many, but I can understand why), but is there something keeping people from just merging the draft right now? I thought that during deletion discussions people could work to improve the article? And incorporating info & sources from the draft would almost certainly improve the article? (I kind of wanted to do that, but I assume there's a reason I can't if no one else is?) [Funnily enough, I found this article because I was trying to learn more about the rules of wikipedia, and it's linked in one of the many articles explaining some of the rules, so I came to check it out] MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marging is work, and doing the merge now might be wasted effort -- if we choose "delete", it will just get deleted. It's not necessary for evaluating this, since this article is not being evaluated based on its content but on its subject. It seems likely that if the decision is "keep", we will simply delete the article and move the draft version into its place, which is simpler than merging. (Merging is useful when you have two versions that each have worthwhile material that isn't in the other, but last I checked, that was not the case here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept, the draft should be back-filled into the history. As it stands, the accepted version in mainspace sounds nearly identical to the older rejected and multiply-declined draft. Therefore, the draft's history should remain to give original credit for those words. And this also casts doubt on the authenticity of the current article's editors' contributions as being truely their own, vs end-run around the non-acceptance of the older draft. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Consider this to be a more succinct statement than what I tried to say in my Keep but it's tangled comment above. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a general acceptance in this discussion that the draft version is better (whether or not it's sufficient), might the simplest way to handle this if the decision is "keep" to simply delete the live version and move the draft into place? I don't quickly note anything from the live version that would need to be merged in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mdewman6, ANUwrites and CapnZapp. Subject has been working as an actress for over ten years and has had about 150 credited TV appearances, with most of those in episodes of a top-rated TV series. More than sufficient to establish clear notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify, since you included me in your "per": There's lots of people with 100+ television credits that Wikipedia rightly ignore, if those are all bit roles. I'm not (strongly) arguing she fulfills the current NACTOR criteria (though I wouldn't be surprised if she is), I'm arguing Wikipedia's criteria are wrong if we can't add articles on young actors simply because not only do they need one successful show, they need two. This heavily tilts Wikipedia's coverage toward adult actors and away from young superstars, sometimes with massive online presences, that people are interested in but our stodgy project choose to ignore. But child actors aren't simply children whose integrity we should protect above all - these individuals and their parental guardians CHOSE public life. They clearly appreciate publicity more than privacy. (No, you can't be part of Hollywood anonymously unless you're a baby) Also, in this case Young Sheldon was a major show where it just so happened that one of its main cast wasn't bluelinked in the main article... and that was (of course) a female. Gender equality is another heavy argument to maintain an article on Revord. All this to say that if you "per" me, you per "so what she hasn't had a second notable role, here we should clearly make an exception from NACTOR". CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be arguing that we should have lower standards for child actors than for adult ones, which seems precisely backwards to me. To the degree that a child actor is making any decision, they are not informed maturely in making themselves so public. There are several ways in which Wikipedia considers minors worthy of additional protection, and Ms. Revord is still a minor at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading but my argument "this rule hurts child actors more" does not mean I want to lower the standards for child actors. I don't have any general issue with the 2-roles criteria, iff we accept that thresholds and rules have justifiable exceptions. The current standards demonstrably result in articles on actors (especially young ones whose careers are just starting) remaining absent until well after they have completed a seven season run of a top 10 show, which is absurd. CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You give TV too much weight. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:MINORS (that essay is an essay). Having a WP-article is not an achievement, nor does it necessarily do the subject any favors. The older someone is, it's a bit more likely they have WP:GNG-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merging would not be appropriate because it is strictly only for copy-and-paste moves. So, how should we resolve this, then? I see at least ~~three~~four possibilities:
- Round-robin swap Draft:Raegan Revord with Raegan Revord and then merge and redirect the former to the latter (if the draft version is better).
- Move Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord (actress) and then move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord. After that, Raegan Revord (actress) could then be merged and redirected to Raegan Revord with the following three rcat templates: {{R from merge}}, {{R with history}}, and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (alternative to round-robin swapping if the draft version is better).
- Merge and redirect Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord (if the article version is better).
- Delete Raegan Revord and then move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord (if there is nothing from the article that is worth merging into the draft). (Added 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC))

GTrang (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all too complicated. I think we should simply not worry about it for a few days, until this AFD is over. Then we delete Raegan Revord and if the outcome is keep, move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord. If the outcome is delete, we just leave the draft where it is, as the draft of something that has a reasonable chance of crossing the notability rubicon soon. There is nothing in the currently-live article that needs to be saved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added a fourth possibility to my list. GTrang (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is long overdue. If any more info is in the draft article it should also be included. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting non-admin close and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there was a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_3#3_January_2025. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to relist this. The comments above are clearly for the keep. This can be closed immediately. Marbe166 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your position amply clear, both here and at the article's talkpage. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well discussed above, feel like this article has enough to make it notable. CDRL102 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~though I agree with others that the content at Draft:Raegan Revord should be moved to the mainspace article~~. She is clearly notable as a main actress in one of the highest rated TV shows of its time, even if not by the letter of the NACTOR guideline. Frank Anchor 20:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft article was moved in place of the main article in the past day. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This article had only caught my attention during its time at deletion review I did not notice the draft version moved to mainspace during the interim. Frank Anchor 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person meets the WP:GNG criteria SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per talk page, still waiting on what three sources show she "easily meets GNG". AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the refs, 21 at the time of writing. IMO, the ones that helps the case for GNG are:
- looper.com [37], the best one per content, but IMO it fails per [38]. If video-game editors don't think it's good enough for video-games, it's not good enough for BLP.
- People:[39][40]. These 2 together may add up to a GNG-point, but there's a lot of "she says" in there.
- HuffPo/Usa Today on her accident [41][42]. Good sources, perhaps another partial GNG-point.
So, having looked through these, I'm at weak delete. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to notability, this is borderline. There is only one credit that counts toward NACTOR, and there are 3-4 sources that almost-but-not-quite count toward GNG. That said, the history shows a number of readers expect to see this article and there is enough material to write a bio that is far from terrible. In these specific circumstances, I think we ought to IAR and recognize that the main actor in a very popular TV show is probably worth an article. As such I am a weak keep. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The main actor"? I don't know if you've seen the show, but she is probably 6th in quantity of screen presence in most seasons (after the title character, his parents, his brother, his grandmother), likely sliding to seventh toward the end (as Mandy became part of the show.) She's a regular, yes, but she's supporting cast. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume more good faith here, Nat. Vanamonde is one of several editors arguing for an exception to the rules (I'm another), please don't obsess over his exact terminology, or worse, try to invalidate his argument over insignificant technicalities. Also, I would drop the implied argument that the subjective ordering of a main cast matters. CapnZapp (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who didn't "assume good faith"? The only thing I said about the poster is that I don't know if they've seen the show, which, unless they had specifically stated that they had seen the show, is not a question of faith.

The idea that I should not address a basic factual error in their statement is strange. That that part of the statement is an "insignificant technicality" does not seem to be carried by the statement itself. I would not want folks who could become involved in this discussion but who did not follow the show to take that claim on face value.

"Also, I would drop the implied argument that the subjective ordering of a main cast matters." You try to police me for an argument that you infer, rather than the editor who made it explicitly part of their argument? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can agree on "a main [cast] actor"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Vanamonde93 wants to define an exception, it's up to them where the line is they are arguing for. If the line is "the main actor", then I would say that no, Revord doesn't qualify. If the line is a "regular" (an actor who by default appears in every episode, as contrast to a "recurring" where the same actor plays the same role on more than one episode but it not by default in each -- in Young Sheldon terms, folks like Wallace Shawn, Ed Begley Jr.) or supporting cast, then I don't have any quibbles that she crosses that line, but would question whether that's enough for an exception. There are shows where you can have six leads -- consider the titular friends of Friends -- but YS isn't it, it has a supporting cast. (This would come into play if we were discussing Montana Jordan, the YS regular whose page I believe I noted some years back as similarly questionable, but whose continuation of his Georgie roll as a titular lead in Georgie & Mandy's First Marriage would make at least a good argument for the page's existence now.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, would a "no consensus" at this point mean "article stays" or "back to draft?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's up to the closer of the discussion, not me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not voting Strong Keep. I just think this actor has been in enough regular and supporting roles for this article to be Kept. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar and the Israel–Hamas war

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

This page is largely empty and probably unnecessary. If the material on Qatar's mediation efforts already mentioned on the linked parent page grows too big, it can be split. Otherwise, there's no real reason to maintain this mere potentiality of a page covering material already covered elsewhere as a somewhat pointless stub. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel, Palestine, and Qatar. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is clear-cut. The article basically just tells us the bald fact that Qatar is playing a diplomatic role in the Israel–Hamas war, with no added value. The related article Qatar as a mediator in conflict contains three lengthy sections (Israel-Hamas hostage mediation, Mediation in the Israel-Hamas war, and Israel-Gaza war and hostage crisis) documenting the relevant events at greater length and is far more informative. This nominated article is meagre and is just a scanty mirror of the much more substantial major article, Qatar as a mediator in conflict. Spideog (talk) 12:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Mebius (character)

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources is just a minimal interview (not really a reception) + a listicles/trivia content. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 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!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraseven (character)

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

I tried to do a semi WP:BEFORE, but most of the sources were about the film. The sources that are currently used were mostly about listicles/rankings/top or popular lists, while the reception is an interview? mixed with merchandise. Merchandise doesn't help notability either, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 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!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Clark (chef)

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted once before for failing WP:NOTMEMORIAL/ WP:VICTIM. Not seeing any significant difference between this and the last time it was taken to AFD by Oaktree b. Granted it was a soft delete outcome first time round. A possible WP:ATD would be redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (A–G). I would suggest article protection if we do that to prevent recreation. 4meter4 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Terrorism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in accordance with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:VICTIM policies, as nominated. Spideog (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Refrained from participating in the first deletion discussion as I was waiting for input from at least one person other than myself or the nominator, which ultimately didn't happen. At the time, my belief was that Clerk met WP:VICTIM due to having "a large role" (potentially saving the lives of hundreds of Fiduciary Trust employees, as reported by both his wife and Fiduciary's senior vice president) "within a well-documented historic event" (9/11) with "persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" (both the CNN and The Daily Beast explicitly cover Clark and his role in the attacks without reading outright like obituaries, and he's mentioned alongside a few other 9/11 victims in the New York Times article). It may be worth noting that Clark was also profiled as a "9/11 Hero" by CNN on the first anniversary of the attacks [[43]]. In the event this article is deleted a second time, I have no intention of recreating it. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The daily beast source is pretty good IMO, so I see what the thought was in making this article. However, the rest, not so much, and the one source is not enough. @The Green Star Collector Can you find any more like that? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still nothing notable about the chef. Died in the attack. You could literally replace "chef" with any other job in the story, and you'd be in the same place. Guy in the towers, helped people out but passed away. Was a non-notable chef (he isn't Gordon Ramsay) and hundreds of people helped hundreds of others escape. This is a simple memorial page, perhaps better served at a 9/11 wiki somewhere... I've said before, we don't need a detailed life history of every single person that died on 9/11, unless they did something to stand out from the other people. Chef/janitor/office worker, they all passed away. Nothing lasting about this person's influence almost 25 years later at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Maxey

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

Not notable; sources are one blog, one self-published book, and an encyclopedia entry with no mention of the subject. — Moriwen (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt the 1980 book in the article was self published, however there are several other books with in depth coverage of this Tennessee founder and Indian captive. The following books have significant coverage: [44], [45]. Fulmard (talk) 07:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fulmard Those books are about a Jesse Maxey who lived in Texas circa 1870. The article is about a Jesse Maxey who died in Tennessee in 1808. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Gateway Press book The Maxeys of Virginia is indeed both (a) WP:SELFPUBLISHED ("Published for the author by Gateway Press Inc." says the copyright page) and (b) non-independent since it is written by a Maxey family member as a geneaology. I find only brief passing mentions of Maxey in other independent and reliable sources, so I don't see a GNG pass. Being a signer of the Cumberland Compact is not presumptively notable, and I don't see reliable sources describing him as a "founder" of Tennessee. As I noted above, the sources supplied by a previous !voter describe a Jesse Maxey living in a different time and place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a signer of of the Cumberland Compact does not confer notability. That Compact article lists hundreds of signatories (including Maxey) almost all of whom do not have nor should have Wikipedia articles. Spideog (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ciranko

AfDs for this article:

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

In looking at the independent book sources cited in the article in google books, all of these sources only mention the subject briefly and in passing (only covering his appointment in one or two sentences; that is all). The few that do have more detail are published by the organization the subject runs and lack independence. See source table below. A WP:BEFORE showed no independent coverage that was in-depth. Fails WP:SIGCOV with zero qualifying sources. I note that this article was rightly deleted once before in 2017. Suggest WP:SALTING it. 4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
George D. Chryssides. Jehovah's Witnesses: Continuity and Change. p. 143.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single-sentence mention of his assumption of office in 2014.
McCoy, Daniel J. (2021). The Popular Handbook of World Religions. Harvest House Publishers. p. 287.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single-sentence mention of his assumption of office in 2014.
Besier, Gerhard; Stoklosa, Katarzyna (2016). Jehovah's Witnesses in Europe—Past and Present. Vol. 1. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 209.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Passing mention of assumption of office in 2014.
"A History-Making Meeting". The Watchtower. Watch Tower Society. August 15, 2011. p. 19.	Y	N	Y	?	N	The Watchtower is published by the organization Chryssides runs. It is not independent.
Minnesota Center for Health Statistics, Office of the State Registrar, St. Paul. Robert L Ciranko and Ketra B Bates 20 Aug 1978	N	Y	Y	N	N	WP:PRIMARY government source verifying subject's marriage. Not significant.
"Keep Holding Men of That Sort Dear"". The Watchtower. Watch Tower Society. October 15, 2015. p. 3. The Governing Body members make the final decisions, but the helpers implement the committee's direction and carry out whatever assignments they are given.	Y	N	Y	?	N	The Watchtower is published by the organization Chryssides runs. It is not independent.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is of little value. It tells us nothing very informative about him: just his rank in an organisation and his immediate ancestry/ethnicity. Spideog (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See, this is the problem with sourcing tables: they very neatly present one opinion. Since the subject leads a local constituency within the Watchtower society, he is not in a leadership or direct affiliation with the ownership of the magazine, and thus non-independence is not established. Having said that, we typically only let a source count once, even if there are multiple articles published in it, so I still don't think we're necessarily to multiple RS yet. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens Not sure how you drew that conclusion. The Watchtower is published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Ciranko is the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. They are clearly not independent of one another.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct; I made an assumption that the national and local organizations were separate, which is not the case. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an easy mistake to make. The religion's governing organization structure is somewhat counterintuitive.4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chef Tony

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

Cited entirely to primary and self published sources connected to the subject. Promotional as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPROMO.4meter4 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Television, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portobello School, Dunedin

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

Fails WP:GNG & no independent coverage. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time

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

Nonnotable non-Asimov's book series tagged for two years woth no independent refs. --Altenmann >talk 04:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. The author appears to be notable (entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction), so at minimum this should redirect to William F. Wu. A quick search turned up some reviews for individual entries in the series, such as this for Marauder, this for Dictator, and this for Invader. TompaDompa (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case merge/redirect may would be a good idea. (@Spideog: (merging done, with TompaDompa's refs) --Altenmann >talk 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Books of no apparent notability, they are NOT by Asimov but simply trade off his name as marketing to children. They could, if necessary, be adequately covered by listing them at the author's page. Spideog (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I forget what we decided to do with book series where no one individual volume is notable, but there is enough RS'ing for the series as a whole. I think this might be a keep based on the above, but I agree a merge (or redirect) to the notable author is the minimum we should expect here. Jclemens (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it looks like there are several "Isaac Asimov's Robots XXX" series, in addiyion to Isaac Asimov's Robots in Time, see Isaac Asimov's Robots and Aliens and Isaac Asimov's Robot City. I will take a look closer. --Altenmann >talk 17:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Drouillard

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

Article is cited to unreliable blogs and self published sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Haiti. – numbermaniac 04:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete single-event fame. --Altenmann >talk 04:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George de Meo

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lasting significance, notable object, sources enough. --Altenmann >talk 04:47, 11 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 [46] or [47] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [48] 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: [49]) --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) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 11 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 [50], which Oaktree b also found, and here [51]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here as there is a fundamental difference of opinion on some sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis in China

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

Does not seem to really pass GNG for a article by itself on the basis of a claim that at one randomly cited year (2005) 150 Israelis happened to be in China. That is such a trivially small number. A few bus loads of people that happen to be in a country is not notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 130 people... even lower. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Israel. Heart ^(talk) 03:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible reason for nomination: I'm sorry, but articles about veterans that are citizens of Western countries alive today should be deleted by like this logic, as they usually make up 1% of the population. I'll admit to having trouble finding coverage about China citizens that are Israeli immigrants, as it seems to be significantly overshadowed by relations between the states of Israel and China, but I am absolutely sick of seeing invalid AFDs like this as of late. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit to having trouble finding coverage about China citizens that are Israeli immigrants – Hi HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs). I've found some sources that I've listed below. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Cunard kicking ass again with a Judaism-related AFD. You go! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously fails GNG. A mere handful of non-notable people, that's all, nothing else. Close to a million people who are not Chinese citizens live in China. One sentence in China–Israel relations would cover this topic adequately. Zero^talk 04:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to History of the Jews in China. --Altenmann >talk 04:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good option. Zero^talk 05:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to China–Israel relations, there is no reason for a seperate article. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shai, Aron (2019). China and Israel: Chinese, Jews; Beijing, Jerusalem (1890–2018). Jewish Identities in Post-Modern Society. Boston: Academic Studies Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv209xmn8. ISBN 978-1-618118-94-3. JSTOR j.ctv209xmn8. Retrieved 2025-01-11 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 239: "This book covers three axes: historical-political, economic-trade, and personal-communal (the Jews and Israelis in China)."
  The book notes on page 128: "Shaul Eisenberg’s extensive experience in China paved the way for other Israeli businesspeople, both directly and indirectly—but where Eisenberg met with enormous success, many others experienced only failure." The book notes on page 129: "Bruno Landesberg, controlling owner and former chairman of Sano-Bruno Enterprises Ltd., a major Israeli cleaning products company, was first drawn to the Chinese market after a Chinese delegation that visited Israel in the 1980s expressed interest in his products. Delegation members proposed that they establish a similar factory in China. Landesberg was excited by the idea and began to act. Along the way he was enchanted by the Chinese culture and people. He set himself the goal of putting down stakes in China. First he consulted with Shaul Eisenberg, and the two began to work together in the early 1990s."
  The book notes on page 137: "Amos Yudan, one of the first Israelis to develop business relations with China, had a definitive opinion on the fates of Sano and Osem there.240 In the case of Sano, he believed that the main error was in the company’s structure."
2. Medzini, Meron (2019-07-10). "The sixth wave - Israeli communities in East and South East Asia". International Journal of Business and Globalisation. Vol. 23, no. 1. pp. 153–165. doi:10.1504/IJBG.2019.100840.
  The article notes: "One study has shown that at least 70% of small businesses started by Israelis in China have failed (Medzini, 2016b). They could not deal with the local language, culture, laws and regulations and legal system. They do not have the stamina it takes to build a business in Asia, nor do they have the time ..."
3. Menahem, Sarit (2010-02-05). "'Land of Challenging Opportunities': Israeli businesses have a lot to offer China, and are appreciated by their counterparts there. But they still have some basic lessons to learn if they want to succeed in its highly competitive climate". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
  The article notes: "Paztal and other Israeli businessmen constitute a small business community in China, most of which is concentrated in Beijing and Shanghai; in the former, there are an estimated 400-500 Israeli families. "Based on data gathered by the consulate, it is hard to say just how many Israelis are here, because not all of them are registered. There is a small group of veterans that has been here for over a decade. At consulate events you see a lot of new faces," explains Arie Schreier, vice president of PTL Group, who has lived in China for the past six years. The population of Israelis in China's large cities is composed mainly of independent business owners, who have succeeded in establishing small- to medium-sized firms. These businesses deal in the export of Chinese goods, high-tech, Internet, security and food products, as well as real estate. ... An impressive number of Israelis arrive via employee relocation by large Israeli companies or multinationals operating in China. These include Nice, Israel Chemicals, ECI, Intel, John Bryce and HP."
4. Gurău, Călin; Dana, Leo-Paul; Katz-Volovelsky, Erez (August 2020). "Spanning transnational boundaries in industrial markets: A study of Israeli entrepreneurs in China". Industrial Marketing Management. 89: 389–401. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.008.
  The abstract notes: "This study investigates Israeli transnational entrepreneurs who provide B2B intermediation services in China. To understand the dynamic evolution of their profile and activity, we apply an interpretative framework that combines practice theory and boundary spanning models to analyze six case studies of Israeli transnational entrepreneurs in China. The findings indicate a gradual evolution of their personal and professional profile, determined by a dynamic interdependence between various forms of capital, entrepreneurial habitus, and circumstantial factors. They mobilize a combination of social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital to span organizational, country, cultural and stage boundaries between Israeli and Chinese individuals and organizations."
5. Hellman, Ziv (2010-10-11). "Setting up shop in China". The Jerusalem Report. p. 30. ProQuest 845443912.
  The article notes: "Israelis seeking to do business in China, however, face several hurdles, mostly due to significant cultural differences that make relating to the Chinese market a greater challenge than selling to Europeans or Americans. Organizations devoted to introducing China to Israelis have emerged in recent years to answer this need. ... Sitting in IsCham's offices in a high-rise office building overlooking a major motorway in eastern Beijing, Tzur looks completely comfortable working in China, effortlessly explaining to a Beijing taxi driver how to find the office tower over the phone in his native language. Tzur has been the executive director of IsCham's Beijing chapter for two years, since its inception, and was an obvious choice given her background. ... Tzur has led tours of Israelis in China and immersed herself in the study of the Chinese language at the university in Beijing.The work at IsCham might seem a detour in what could be a budding diplomatic career in China, but Tzur says she is very pleased with what she has accomplished there. "We have only had two years of existence," she points out, "and I have already seen how much we have managed to assist Israelis trying to get a start in business here. We have also signed cooperation agreements with 20 other national chambers of commerce operating in Beijing and Shanghai."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Israeli visa curbs ended after meeting". South China Morning Post. 2001-11-06. p. 9. ProQuest 2420383595. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
    The article notes: "Terrorism-related visa restrictions threatening the business of about 300 Israeli companies with offices in China were lifted a day after last month's Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) meeting in Shanghai, a Western diplomat said yesterday. ... Israeli business people said at the time it was unfair to be lumped in with terrorists and forced to cancel visits to clients. ... Israelis in China considered postponing trips home for fear their return would be barred. Israeli building security firm ICD Ltd chief executive Ron Efron said he might have laid people off had the restrictions persisted, because two key people stuck outside China forced the firm to forgo business."
  2. Wagner, Mattew (2007-06-03). "Chinese TV airs Elyashiv's opposition to organ harvesting: Conference at Beilinson to discuss Israeli exploitation of Chinese organ trafficking". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
    The article notes: "Some private insurance companies still fund Chinese organ transplants. Dr. Jacob Levee, director of the heart transplant unit at Sheba Medical Center, put the figure since 2004 at 200-300 kidney transplants performed on Israelis in China, 20 heart transplants and 10 liver transplants."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Israelis in China to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic Israelis in China meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I considered whether Israelis in China should be covered in a standalone article or in History of the Jews in China. I think many of the sources I listed here call the subjects Israelis (and many don't say whether the subjects are also Jews). So it would be original research and possibly inaccurate to assume all the Israelis discussed in those sources are Jews and to cover the topics in History of the Jews in China. I also considered whether to merge this article to China–Israel relations. The sources focus on the Israeli businesspeople who live in China and not as much on the relations between China and Israel, so the material from these sources probably doesn't all fit in the relations article. I concluded that it's probably best to have a standalone article for Israelis in China. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elvana Gjata, because duh. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's Episcopal Church (Altadena, California)

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

As far as I can tell this is a purely local church in a small California city. Being burned down doesn't make a structure notable and I'm not seeing any coverage of this place not related to the fire. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Organizations, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it important to note that this article was only created a couple of days ago, presumably in light of the destruction-associated coverage. In general, I would recommend waiting a few months to see if more coverage arises rather than hashing it out in AfD based on what we have now. Jclemens (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it could be draftified rather than float around in the mainspace. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation in draft space is not a requirement. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I said "could be". Three of the four sources on this article are websites that exclusively post church-related news, and the other is the churches website. Could it gain long-term notability? Possibly, but I doubt it. I do see a CBS and AP article mentioning the church but right now it seems this was a random local church getting WP:ROTM coverage for its association with one event. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. None of the sources are independent of the church, so there's no evidence available that it passes GNG and should thus not be retained in article space. However, per Jclemens' suggestion that new sources could emerge given the building's destruction, I would be OK with retaining in draft space. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Herscu

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage from his days as a high school basketball player (1), which I think would fail WP:YOUNGATH anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Illinois, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Coombs

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Also can not be solved by simply renaming to Murder of Melvin Coombs. The murder itself fails WP:EVENTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable individual dying under unclear circumstances, the other person was not guilty. I'm not seeing notability. A simple natural death. Oaktree b (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Dance, Crime, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I don’t know why WP:VICTIM is being invoked here because that very clearly is not the claim to notability? While he is not notable as a murder victim and the murder itself is not notable, The claim to notability is of him as a Native American dancer. That he happened to be killed doesn’t seem to be the notability claim (not mentioned in the lead, little to none of the article is about it). We should be evaluating off NBASIC or GNG. The sources in the last AfD aren’t nothing, but eh. While being murdered doesn’t make a non notable person notable, just the same being murdered does not make a notable person NOT notable PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA That's because the sources don't support notability in a different context. There aren't any sources with significant coverage about him as a dancer or educator. The one source pre-death used mentions the subject as participating at the Quinnehtukqut Rendezvous & Native American Festival and then gives a brief passing interview with the subject about the festival, but this is neither in-depth nor significant and arguably not independent as its an interview about a different topic. All of the sources where he is the primary subject involve him as a victim and occur after his death. The "Melvin Coombs is not forgotten" piece is primarily about a grand jury, and while it mentions what he did in other contexts, it is clearly a memorial piece about his killing. We would have to see coverage external to coverage of his death and the subsequent court cases to prove notability outside his death, and that just isn't the case. The sources don't exist. As such WP:VICTIM is the cogent policy which tells us he isn't notable because of this lack of sourcing external to his death. 4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 I’m not saying the other sources are enough for notability in any context (I have not checked yet which is why I haven’t voted) but it’s strange to me to use the rationale when it’s not the claim to notability. Will check later and then vote (from what I’m seeing I assume my vote will be delete but I am away from the computer at the moment lol) PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after checking for sources, little outside of local coverage, even right when it happened, and what local coverage is there is not particularly extensive. The search was quite annoying because this is not a rare name, but I could not find much, though there were some prior hits it was not helpful. As the nominator states the crime is not notable either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Spiders

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

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this semi-pro basketball team to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @JTtheOG: The Hornsby Spiders are regularly covered, in depth, in the Daily Telegraph (Hornsby Advocate). (The "Ku-ring-gai" often gets dropped.) Their competitions are also covered by other newspapers. There is also past coverage when their teams have competed at the national level which is indexed by ProQuest (without access to the full articles unfortunately). Cielquiparle (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's helpful. The ref added is not terribly in-depth, but I'd be happy to withdraw once better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 03:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this, though it seems to be routine coverage of a U12 competition. JTtheOG (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Spanish Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find any WP:SIGCOV for this table tennis competition after using various search terms in English and Spanish. I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series unless better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 North American Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find enough in-depth coverage of this competition to meet WP:GNG. There is this piece from ButterflyOnline, a Japanese table tennis equipment distributor, but not much else other than a few photo galleries (1, 2, 3). I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fresco-Le-Raye

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

Random comic strip character. Did not find any sources about it to justify its own article. GamerPro64 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. GamerPro64 01:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient coverage. --Altenmann >talk 04:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Kathmandu

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

Cited by a dubious WP:NEWSORG i. e. Online Khabar. The other outlet (Nepali Times) is not vetted by any scholar and the event is itself loosely covered in few lines, fails WP:MILNG. Garuda ^Talk! 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Hinduism, Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and West Bengal. Garuda ^Talk! 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A lot of here and there yet no separate section for "Sack" and "invasion". Everything about the event revolves around background and aftermaths. "His army sacked the temple of Swayambhunath and looted Kathmandu city for three days, returning to Bengal with plentiful spoils." is the only relevant info to be found which doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it seems to be a split between Keeping this article or Draftifying it. I will note that we do have other articles on the project for "next elections".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have information specific to this election (i.e. opinion polling data). WP:CRYSTAL specifically allows for future scheduled events that will almost certainly happen (a category that elections in a democratic country fall into). Number 5 7 01:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Number57. These kinds of election articles are routine and always contain verifiable encyclopedic information. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:23, 11 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]
Keep as he does have an AllMusic staff written bio here, and a staff review of a solo album here. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please provide a live link to the target article you are suggesting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 [52], and here, but this is more of a mention [53]. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard and Oaktree b's examples and the fact this is essentially the LDS' Oscars and Tony awards. Of course, given the LDS, that doesn't mean much in the Grand scheme of things, but still.User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:34, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If a Redirect or Merge outcome is suitable, please provide a live link to a preferred target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:04, 11 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayant Kashyap

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

Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost 00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?

Jayant KA$HYAP (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Road

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

Non notable road, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GEOROAD and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing three sources about it:

Begum, Ayesha (2016) [2012]. "ফুলার রোড" [Fuller Road]. Encyclopedia of Dhaka (in Bengali). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 262–263. ISBN 9789845120197.
ফুলার রোডকে প্রেম চত্বর মনে করেন বহিরাগতরা
ফুলার রোডে নিয়ম করে চলে বাইক রেস-স্ট্যান্ট, দুর্ঘটনার আশঙ্কা

The first source is from an encyclopedia which is notable and important for Dhaka-related topics. In this sense, the subject is notable and doesn’t fail. Mehedi Abedin 11:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are pretty much LOCALCOVERAGE and TRIVIAL pieces, Unable to view the book so unable to comment on this, imho still fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Files

File:2021 Myanmar coup.jpg

This is a screenshot from a media report being used to illustrate an event. It fails NFCC #1 because there are many things it could potentially be replaced with, and also fails the specific WP:PRESSPHOTO restriction. TEMPO156 (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:35th International Congress of Genealogical and Heraldic Sciences.webp

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

#section-h:Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 11

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review

Template:Wikipedia community

Speedy deletion candidates

Articles

Files

Categories

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:People from Dubá

Category:1600 murders in Europe

Category:Albin Kurti

Category:Murders in France by year

Category:Massacres by year

Category:2110s in the arts

Arab supporters of Israel

Category:Fictional characters by age

Category:Urban guerrilla warfare

Category:OnTV4U affiliates

Category:Meitei gods

Category:Brunei in fiction

Government in/of X

Metacomet Ridge

Category:Sadistic horror films

Category:A Christmas Story

Category:Rape of Persephone

Category:City

Category:1896 murders in Iran

Disasters in Iran

Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran in 1994

Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran in 1981

Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran in 1978

Category:1917 disasters in Iran

Category:Animals in religion

Category:Votia

Category:Human-Environment interaction

Category:Modernity

Category:Ethnographic museums in Israel

Category:Church buildings in fiction

Category:Baseball players from Edwards County, Texas

Redirects

Templates and Modules

Miscellany

Deletion review