Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 21	December 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Cherry Twister. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Home With Cherry Twister

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMUSIC. I can find no evidence that the album charted, or won any awards. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:35, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AllMusic and the New Zealand Herald are both reliable sources and those reviews are solid. The Borack book entry is basically a review in itself, and also a solid one. Seems like enough to meet GNG/NMUSIC#1 to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pro reviews and other coverage are sparse, but there is enough for the type of basic article that is common for an album of this magnitude. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "magnitude", though? That's the problem. I can find no evidence the album charted at all. We don't have articles for every album, only notable ones. Meanwhile, sites like AllMusic will review a multitude of releases, because, well, that's their business. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cherry Twister. The sources are fine, but really a bit thin for a standalone article. Both the band article and the album article are short, which makes the merger beneficial. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 16 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!} 23:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cherry Twister: Does not appear to be a notable album. This was the only sort of a review I could find [1], but a blog... Didn't chart or make any sales records, so I don't see notability. If we have one more review in media, I'd reconsider. I've looked in Gnewspapers, nothing comes up. Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this [2], it looks to be a reprint of a music blog though. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Hard to know how that blurb in that book stacks up as criteria for notability. I'd have to say it doesn't unless there is something more definitive. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Merge with Cherry Twister because this hasn't charted. Also I agree that the sites mentioned above are not discriminate in their coverage of music because that is their business model. Nothing wrong with that. Except this type of coverage does not fit well with our notability criteria. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cherry Twister: not convinced a standalone article is needed. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear among established editors and with policy compliant input. Star Mississippi 15:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Rex

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

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

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

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

Total promo nonsense article, sourced to passing mentions with nothing meaningful in the way of actual coverage - and the only mentions of Rex are again, in passing, if even that. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont label an article that I spent my time and effort working on nonsense. Talk to me with respect. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I was asked to review this article earlier. I tagged it as relying too heavily on primary sources. It seems like with how long this person has been around and the circles they trade in it would be easy for him to be notable by some metric, but his projects and interviews have no independent coverage and there's little to nothing I could find that discusses him in an impartial way. Recon rabbit 20:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I created the page so let me explain why. I will start like this.

In the early days of Instagram verification, before Instagram gave out verification, they didnt know how to select who was worthy of being verified and why those people were worthy and others were not. So they found a solution. One of the criteria they used to determine if someone was notable to be verified was to check out the number of DMs said person from other verified accounts. Getting DMs from verified accounts meant you were notable too. E.g an obscure music producer getting DMs from different big musicians meant he was notable even though he wasnt famous. Afterall some notable people work behind the scenes. Jimmy Rex's Show have had some great people on the podcast. In Wikipedia we call those "associates". Lots of people who have Wikipedia articles have been guests at his show. A non notable podcaster wont pull notable guests to his podcast.

There is something else I should point out. There was a debate about Giannis Antetokounmpo, and how his opening sentence should be worded. The bone of contention was whether he should be labeled as a Greek or a Nigerian-Greek. What put that argument to rest was a video from YouTube. In the video he said that he represents both Nigeria and Greece. These are the scenarios when Youtube videos can be employed. In Jimmy Rex's case, these notable guests are talking by themselves for themselves. You watch the video and see them. It is verifiable. When you say primary source, do you know that you mean that the words are coming from Jimmy Rex's mouth? And in this case, are they? Cokeandbread (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what WP:SOURCING is, because I'm not going to explain it to you. It details the different types and the fact that your article is a raging advertisement sourced to blackhat SEO doesn't help. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:YOUTUBE-EL.

And about SEO blackhatting, you are simply projecting, because I never had the intention for such. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how I am projecting? What does that mean? GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some signs that you might be projecting onto me:

• You make assumptions about my intentions. With no good faith.

• You accuse me of doing something that you yourself might be guilty of.

• You seem overly sensitive to my words or actions, as if you’re taking them personally. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Define projecting. Cause this isn't it. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have time for this. Cokeandbread (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing in-depth independent coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. A ref-bombed promo article, most likely COI/paid editing. Edwardx (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I created the article, I wrote a sub section about his controversy and I was asked to remove it because it was negative. Now, the article seems like a promo because it is too nice? Okay.

Also Read WP:YOUTUBE-EL. Cokeandbread (talk) 00:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommended that the controversy section be removed because controversy sections are generally a poor idea, especially on a biography of a living person. Vice News was not a strong enough source to justify it. Recon rabbit 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single source is either a passing mention, not independent of the subject, or about a different subject entirely (referring to one of his guests). Plus, there is WP:TRIVIA being used to puff up the citations list: Guatemala is one of his favorite travel destinations? An NBA star crashed one of his parties? Who TF cares. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Wikipedia article with minimal citations but clear notability. Deletion of notable Wikipedia pages because of fewer citations can set a dangerous precedent. Gracefoundme (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me like there are plenty of citations, but many of them are weak in terms of reliability and are not independent of Jimmy Rex. Recon rabbit 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracefoundme: what do you mean "minimal citations but clear notability"? How is notability met if not via WP:GNG? GNG doesn't require a lot of sources of course but it does require enough depth. What are these sources to establish the level of coverage needed for GNG? Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From what I see I believe the Wikipedia article is notable. The creating editor seems naive so I think it is creator issue, not a notability issue. Keep and keep improving. Wallclockticking (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am learning. Cokeandbread (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article currently is written. I'm of the opinion that controversy often makes a person notable. Recent examples of articles that I've saved because of bad reviews or controversy include Topaz (novel) and The Legend That Was Earth. Another article is Sangre Grande Regional Complex, often described as a white elephant. Many a bad broadcaster has achieved notability by having outrageous guests. I'm glad to change my !vote if critiques are added back in. Bearian (talk) 05:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good day Bearian. Following your instructions, I added his critiques. I dont know if it is sufficient to change your mind though. Cokeandbread (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir Cokeandbread (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because many influential podcasters are notable despite limited traditional media coverage. The reason why is because podcast is the new media and traditional citations don't yet know how to do justice to podcasters' influence. Their reach, engagement, and cultural relevance often exceed those of traditionally cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdhoul 138 (talk • contribs) time, day month year (UTC)
Delete as written as it's clearly promotional, but I'm also not sure a neutral article is possible based on the available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is consistent with other Wikipedia podcasting WP:POD articles from what I see. Amaekuma (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:WHATABOUTX argument, not a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in its current state, the article covers his achievements and controversies, giving a balanced view that fits Wikipedia’s standards. Miss Dike 16:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"his achievements and controversies" does not contribute to any notability standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search show this article has independent secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. Thus, it has pass GNG. Again, [3], [4], [5] and [6] are enough to establish notability. 102.91.104.221 (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today is not about this individual, he's only mentioned and has a quote. The other sources aren't RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:REFBOMB of primary source Q&As, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, press releases, affiliated sources (eg official bios), student media, etc. Not a single source is WP:SIGCOV in an independent, secondary, reliable source. Total WP:GNG/WP:NBIO failure and highly promotional as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Almost evenly divided between editors arguing to Keep this article and those advocating Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable podcast person. There are no articles in RS about this individual; what's used in the article are trivial mentions or non-RS. I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closer: The discussion may at present look evenly divided, but the "keep" !votes are either not policy based or offer sources that other !voters have rebutted. It is also unusual that this particular discussion has attracted so many "keep" !votes from accounts that are participating in AfD for either the first (Gracefoundme, Miss Dike and obviously the IP) or second (Wallclockticking, Abdhoul 138) time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You create articles with 7 references or less. Even if I want to learn how to create articles, it will not be from you. Rest. Cokeandbread (talk) 19:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources seem either unreliable or non-substantial. I only saw one source that could be deemed as establishing GNG, but until we see more, this is most appropriately deleted. Madeleine (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Cokeandbread (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to stop with the WP:BLUDGEON. It does not help your case in any way. Madeleine (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very civil and contributing to Wikipedia to make a great encyclopedia, not trying to WP:SATISFY you. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just how is responding to every Delete vote forming a consensus? Madeleine (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are either passing mentions, written by Jimmy Rex or interviews with him. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources for him. Fails WP:GNG. One of the references wouldn't open for me but that's not uncommon with American sites when accessing them from the UK. Knitsey (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article on Jimmy Rex should be kept because Jimmy Rex is notable in multiple fields as a podcast host and the producer of 20th Century Fox movie, Once I Was a Beehive. NOTE: this is an unsigned post from Cokeandbread, who has has already voted above. Edwardx (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the subject meets notability standards. The article provides key information and serves as a basis for further development. Pruddyyyy (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
19 edits. Joined 20 December. Hmm. Edwardx (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the edits that I looked at were minor wording ("i.e. from [[subtropical or tropical moist lowland forest]] to [[subtropical or tropical moist lowland forest|subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests]]) which look to me like an attempt to build up some edit stats. Has anyone looked for WP:SOCK evidence? The "keep" responses here have some characteristics in common, IMO. Lamona (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, note that there is an ongoing SPI for all keep !votes so far in here.YuniToumei (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been called a COI editor, a paid editor, a sock, a nonsense editor and all these bad names just because I decided to create an article. I have been on Wikipedia for 2 months and I have been called more bad names and accused of More insulting allegations within that time than I have been faced in years of my real life. I'm starting to think it isnt worth it. Cokeandbread (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author of the page in question has been indeffed on grounds of WP:NOTHERE and utter disreputability, including a possible COI. Borgenland (talk) 09:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this whole article frankly reads like a bad trivia section.Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No source meets the combined criteria of reliable, secondary, and in-depth so the subject fails WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks more of a resume than an article. Also fails WP:NBIO as no RS found talking about the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel McLean (writer)

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

inexplicably declined - despite no evidence of notability - being a "kindle author" is meaningless in the absence of actual meaningful coverage, of which there is none. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (As I had to go and look to work out what you meant by 'Inexplicably declined'...) Your nomination for a speedy deletion was declined, with the perfectly clear explanation that "the Kindle award is enough to get past an A7, and the article is not promotional". Speedy Deletion is for a very strictly determined subset of articles. JeffUK 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG, the Amazon source is not neutral, and the bookseller source alone isn't sufficient. There are a few mentions around of McLean attending book signings and the like, but they're also not really neutral as it's a commercial engagement being advertised. JeffUK 15:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear - it's certainly not speedy delete-able because there's an allegation of notability and some coverage although debatable whether it's significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it meets sustained coverage, the Amazon article is not neutral, the Bookseller article is an just reporting on the exact same award (So even though it's more neutral, it's not sustained coverage) The only other article in a very very local paper about 'author signs books at local library' is around the time of the Amazon award (again, not sustained coverage). I just don't think it meets the test. Mostly there's just not enough here for us to write an article with. JeffUK 10:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, delete then. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She seems to have different names/pseudonyms, I've found a few more sources that way and incorporated more info (edit: + over a wider range of years) but unsure if it's enough. – Starklinson 10:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there have been a lot of changes to this article since its nomination so it should get an additional review.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:HEY. Better sourcing than the version that was submitted to AfD, but admittedly I'm unsure whether the added sources pushes the subject solidly into the notable category. I'd err toward keep than delete here. Madeleine961 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any critical reviews for any of this individual's books when I search. What's used in the article doesn't appear to be RS, mostly blogs. This writer seems to give advice on how to self publish in the few sources I've found. [7], seems to be in independent author, so that could explain the lack of much critical coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Gscholar or Jstor either, appears to be a prolific writer though. Some sources says "award-winning author", but I don't know how much weight that carries. I don't see any awards won that I recognize, anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe being self-published isn't itself an arbiter of notability or lack thereof. It can be harder to get coverage that way, though it seems there's more coverage in The Bookseller than I previously thought based on newer edits. Starklinson (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giacomo Milano

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted article which was recently recreated with no significant improvements. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing there are multiple Italian Ruby players up here made be look below WP:SPORTCRIT to see if there was a Rugby specific guideline. Seeing that there is WP:NRODEO but no Rugby guideline. Makes me think WP could use a Rubgy guideline. I do not have enough subject matter knowledge to want to attempt that though Czarking0 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically all primary sources in the sense that they are published by the institutions he plays for. Does not seem to be notable enough in other respects. Googling his name only returns basic player stats. I also tried Italian google news and he does not come up. Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chima Amadi

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

The article fails WP:GNG. All the sources are pass mentioned or interviews with run of the mills awards Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable article about a living people who doesn’t meet the general notability criteria. Awards won does not confer WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Esti92 (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles and other violent events by death toll

AfDs for this article:

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

This page, deleted once already, was recreated as a disambiguation page, but the current page has only one entry which is not suitable for a redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is already a List of battles by casualties and List of wars by death toll, and zero reason to group them with "other violent events" (whatever those are; alien invasions???). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misuse of disambiguation. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At one point it at least disambiguated between two lists, but one of them has since been deleted. --Richard Yin (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear misuse of disambiguation. TH1980 (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 12:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renato Canova

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

Most information is not about Canova but about his athletes, and a vast majority of information in the article is unsourced and full of puffery/promotional material. Notability may be there but the current state of the article is abysmal. Some of the only major sources I can find on Renato are the two refs used in the article, while a lot of other sources seem to be from blogs. The two links to Men's Racing and the Running Times seem to be dead links. This article needs a lot of work especially for a BLP and doesn't seem to be edited frequently. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my nomination of deletion for Renato Canova because he passes notability. The article just needs a lot of work which can be solved through simple editing and citing reliable sources that other editors have mentioned. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have just removed a lot of the promotional material/puffery in the article. Hope we can save this article as Canova seems like a noteworthy/legendary coach. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems solvable through editing. Here is another article, in part about Sondre Nordstad Moen, but also a lot about Canova who became Moen's coach in 2017. Geschichte (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. I found the German version of the article which seems much more fleshed out than the English version. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest withdrawal, surmountable issues, which the nominator himself is now addressing. The subject easily passes GNG. This article from the major Italian sport newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport could be a starting point for improvements. Cavarrone 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of AEW Dynamite special episodes#2023. Content worth merging may be pulled form the page history. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving Eve Dynamite (2023)

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

No evidence of independent notability for this holiday-special TV episode. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC) Redirect to List of AEW Dynamite special episodes#2023 seems like the perfect WP:ATD. JTtheOG (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Wrestling, and Illinois. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This seems highly superflous, considering all the other years of this event exist in article form I see no reason why this should be any different. I was going to even describe the details of said event in the "Production" section. I really see no reason why this article should be deleted, it serves it's purpose, it's grouped in with the others and every other yearly event associated with it has it's own article. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Using an article from 2006 for a TV show almost 20 yrs later as sourcing isn't showing notability. This is about typical [8], seems to be a series of tv shows, rather than one special. I don't see anything showing this particular incarnation was very notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you're not in the wrestling sphere, these are different comapanies with no relation to one another with seperate names and seperate specials. The company that hosted this event isn't even 10 years old. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 2006 is more than 10 years ago, I don't know what to tell you. Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Elite Wrestling, the actual wrestling promotion who hosted the event, was founded in 2019. The event is not connected to the ones from 2006 as they are in a different promotion under an entirely different name. That is a fact and nothing else. Lemonademan22 (talk) 02:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are referring to the source in the article being from 2006. JTtheOG (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not understanding. I read the article but how can you connect this special with an unrelated 2006 special that I've never even heard of from a different company? Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's saying that somehow the reference used for this article was created in 2006. Realistically that source just says an outline of how wrestling works. It doesn't help push towards WP:GNG and, in this case, show WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest this article could just be tagged to be worked on and I'd gladly spend more time on it. It doesn't need to be full on deleted. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show that is it a notable event enough to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED not just as a regular Dynamite episode? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can.

Firstly, it is the fourth of five specials that has happened since 2019, not counting 2020 as one was not held, and all of them have articles.

Secondly, it was watched by almost 1 million people alone (Source: [9] ) and broadcast on TBS one of the biggest cable networks in America.

Thirdly, it was extensivley covered while the action was happening by Bleacher Report (Source [10] ) which is one of the biggest online sports news companies in America also and it was also covered by news outlet Cageside Seats (Source: [11]), a division of SB Nation, another big American news outlet.

The evidence in my opinion is clear that this is quite notable, albeit the article does lack secondary sources it would not be an issue to add them as long as the article does not get deleted as I wouldn't be able to then. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
seems like routine content to me. It was watched by almost the exact same amount the week before. Cageside seats and bleacher report are both unreliable sources, but even if they weren't, they also cover most episodes of Dynamite. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the ratings were actually down from the previous week in the key 18–49 demo. JTtheOG (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because it was before Thanksgiving? Personally I don't see the difference. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources, Bleacher Report is a "limited reliable source", CagesideSeats is listed as an unreliable source so that's fine but I was illustrating the point that big news outlets were covering the action and the episode. Lemonademan22 (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this? That's on every single wrestling article covering a PPV, special episode ect. that's nothing new on Wrestling articles on Wikipedia, it's always used. It shouldn't make a difference. If secondary sources are what you want I'll put them on the article and improve it that way than it being deleted. Lemonademan22 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be what's required. Multiple reliable third party sources talking in depth about the subject that aren't just WP:ROUTINE coverage. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in this article suggests that this is, nor the other events are independently notable from the regular Dynamite episodes. Just seems like a regular TV show that has a Christmas themed episode. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but did you even read the title? It clearly says Thanksgiving. Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the time of year makes any difference. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Thanksgiving usually marks the start of the Christmas season if that makes a difference. Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere: AEW as of late has gone towards adding more subtitles to the weekly shows, but whereas specials such as Blood & Guts or Grand Slam are built like PPVs, the Thanksgiving Eve shows tend to be on the "regular episode with a subtitle bolted on" end of the spectrum. It's a plausible search term, so I'd err against full-scale deletion, but I'm not convinced it was really that special. Sceptre (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with this. @Lee Vilenski what if we merge all Thanksgiving Eve Dynamites in one article similar to Saturday Night's Main Event and have the existing articles as redirects. Lemonademan22 (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also @JTtheOG. Lemonademan22 (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are these Thanksgiving episodes any different from regular Dynamite episodes though? We shouldn't have an article simply becuase it has an appendix to the shows name, or every Christmas episode of every TV show would have its own article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are longer episodes of Dynamite and, among that, are allowed a special over run and often showcase special match ups, for example this special heavily features the Continental Classic tournament. They are also built like PPVs in a way that they feature "blow-off" matches to feuds and storylines. That's why I think they're notable enough. Although I think merging all of them together is a good idea. Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of AEW Dynamite special episodes#2023 This is pretty much the article in summary, just with the lede set into a just as descriptive table. Nate • (chatter) 00:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect. To be honest, I don't get why there are so many articles about AEW Dynamite specials episodes. Every Dynamite/Collison/Rampage episode with a fancy name has an article. Beyond WP:ROUTINE, there are no sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HHH Pedrigree: How do you feel about Lemonademan22's idea of merging all Thanksgiving Eve Dynamites into one article similar to Saturday Night's Main Event? JTtheOG (talk) 20:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Other articles are created to include several editions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volitan

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability. Can't find anything within the last decade, or describing an actual vessel, rather than a vague concept for sticking solar panels to a boat. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Temporary coverage about a design, not a real product ever made. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary Families of Christ

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

Page heavily edited by a user who was blocked for promotional editing. Sources found in article are mostly primary and these appear to have been added for promotional purposes. Notability also seems to be lacking, and there is no evidence that this subject warrants an encyclopedic article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing in the article isn't sufficient, and this is about all I could find [12]. Gsearch is only showing primary sources, their website, a facebook page. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article relies heavily on primary sources, and only blogs and/or non-independent sources that cover this community are available. As Oaktree b said, nothing is available that can prove its notability. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charis Fourkiotis

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

His 46 minutes of professional football is, at best, a weak presumption of notability. My searches didn't yield any WP:SPORTBASIC coverage. Elassona News has an announcement about him which is only 2 sentences long. Larissa Net mentions him once. AELOle has a transfer announcement which is copied from his club's website. There is no good coverage in WP:RS as far as I can see. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in Greek media

Noah ^💬 19:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. By the way I'm pretty sure Super League 2 stopped being fully professional after COVID. The league was expanded from 12 to a whopping 34 teams, and with diminutive match attendance in several arenas. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Warikoo

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable YouTuber, given sources are either obviously paid or lack WP:SIGCOV. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Internet, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing now is more for an business person than a youtuber, and it's only funding announcements. PR items or funding announcements aren't helpful. Appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All references fail WP:SIRS. If author disagrees, they should indicate the WP:THREE that satisfy. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable but poorly written. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What shows he is notable? Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you can google him, he is famous, in Forbes list etc.. I do not currently have time to expand it, but surely he is notable. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article translation in Hindi has a usual a traffic of 700 per month. See

_{Note: I am not a paid editor, or paid to create this page. I just thought it would be good to translate it as he is quite famous on internet.} PerspicazHistorian (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia has a very specific, narrow definition. Please read the link and understand that you have to prove notability, not just assert it with you can google him. Please read WP:SIRS to understand the level of referencing required to prove notability, and then, as I requested previously, list the WP:THREE. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further, each language Wikipedia has it's own rules regarding notability. The fact that the Hindi-language wiki even has an article about this subject is non-material. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG. Please see. I tried to make the article as neutral as possible with less promotional stuff. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read WP:SIRS and WP:THREE. You haven't understood our notability requirements. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It mostly self-promotional, and fails WP:SRIS because of lack of independence or significance. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:35, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. The subject is probably notable. There are articles in reliable independent news sources, where Warikoo was not the author.^{e.g. Inamdar, Nikhil; Shah, Ayushi (22 June 2022). "Ankur Warikoo, Rachana Ranade: The YouTubers Indians turn to for financial advice". BBC news.} The article needs more work; and needs to make clear who the authors were of the various sources. This is best done in draft. PerspicazHistorian should be encouraged to develop this article. If he/she did a "source assessment table"^example it would help him/her to evaluate news sources that he/she could use to make this article better.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timoleon Patronis

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

Played 2 league matches and 1 cup match before disappearing from professional football. This stats stub gives no indication of passing WP:SPORTBASIC either. Sportsup contains a trivial mention of him in a list of players transferred out. Sigma Live and a few other sources contain a mention of a player of the same name who was the assistant manager of Panachaiki from 1971 to 1978 so clearly a different person (but possibly a relative) given the connection to the same club. In any case, there is no significant coverage of either Timoleon Patronis that I can find. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Article definitely fails WP:GNG with only one source provided that is a database. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to This Is Me... Now. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Me... Live

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

A cancelled tour, none of its dates are happening. All the information here can be redirected/merge with This Is Me... Now. The dates table is redundant anyway. This article fails WP:NTOUR essentially. Ippantekina (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Popular culture. Ippantekina (talk) 17:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to This Is Me... Now, pretty much per nom. BD2412 T 19:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: as suggested is fine. This was a no-go concert, rebranded and turned into something else. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aside from WP:NTOUR or other specific project-based notability criteria, this received a lot of media coverage, had a bit of background info. It meets WP:GNG which trumps project-based notability criteria. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 20:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1047 c

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

Non-notable exoplanet, the bibliographies of exoplanet.eu and NASA Exoplanet Archive only show database coverage about it. Fails WP:NASTRO. Might be redirected to List of exoplanets discovered in 2016. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm no expert on this topic, but is the following statement run-of-the-mill for exoplanets, or is it something exceptional: "The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star."? Athel cb (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb, I have been through the references and surprised to see that none of them mentioned the text The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star. Also searched the web about that and realised that it's not something extraordinary. Meanwhile the NASA website stated about that Planet[13].––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found more exoplanets with such info, TOI-2109b, Kepler-78b, K2-137b. Mentioned all could prove that the stated sentence about that specific exoplanet was just a run-of-the-mill.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a lot planets with such low orbital periods, so they are not individually notable. This is not a very remarkable charateristic that is not seen in any other planet. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a bit unusual in that it's an Earth mass planet orbiting very close to a Sun-like star. There's probably an interesting story in how it got down to that orbit. Perhaps a migrating gas giant that has been stripped of its atmosphere? Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any studies so it's not notable at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 06:02, 10 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!} 16:45, 15 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!} 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No academic publications or news coverage of the planet was found in either ADS, Google Scholar, or a Google search. Article therefore has minimal, if any, WP:SIGCOV. Ark Hyena (it/its) 16:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per WP:G5 -- creation by a sock of previously banned account. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Yuen (Co-founder Wattpad)

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a software engineer and company co-founder, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for a standalone article. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to pass defined criteria to qualify -- but the main notability claim here is that he exists, with the article otherwise lapsing into corporate PR-speak ("Yuen is based in Canada and continues to mentor emerging talent while investing in early-stage companies through his involvement with Elder Ventures", "At Wattpad, Yuen has contributed to the company’s strategic growth and innovation", etc.) rather than being written in an encyclopedic tone.
And the article isn't referenced to strong WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him, but to a mixture of primary sources which aren't support for notability at all and glancing namechecks of his existence (e.g. as a provider of soundbite) in sources whose primary subject is the company as a whole rather than him as an individual.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on more substantive content and sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework. Looking through the soutces, I'm seeing enough reliable and nontrivial coverage to warrant WP:GNG. The Forbes, BBC, and Inc. articles cover his and Allen Lau's role in the starting of Wattpad fairly comprehensively, though more emphasis is placed on Lau then Yuen it seems. Yes, they are covered mostly in the context of Wattpad, but not exclusively. From skimming those three articles, all of them mention that Yuen worked at a previous game studio with Lau before he worked on Wattpad and Lau joined him. guninvalid (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've taken a full look at the article and I've spent quite a while doing nothing but trimming almost everything for unsourced or unencyclopedic. I might be able to save the article since there's a bit of other information I can throw in but no guarantees. At this point, I'm okay with either Keep or Delete. guninvalid (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing my !vote to Delete. Looking at the edit history, this article seems to entirely be written by @Readcircle, who, according to their talk page edit history, did not put it through the propers WP:AfC process, and who should not have had permissions to create a mainspace article like this without going through AfC. AfD is not a substitute for AfC. guninvalid (talk) 21:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Readcircle just got canned by the checkuser, and all their articles were wiped. You can wipe this one too now. guninvalid (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Singh Oberoi

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

The article fails notability and significant coverage. Pizzaonpineapple (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Businesspeople. Pizzaonpineapple (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The individual who created this article submitted it multiple times before they were auto confirmed, and multiple times it was declined for not being Notable. The individual did not just suddenly become notable because the editor of the article became auto confirmed. The individual in this article does not show any notability to speak of. Not only should the article be deleted but WP:Salted as well.--VViking_TalkEdits 15:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and salt~~ – to quote my own reviewer comment at the draft: The sum of the information about him is as follows: He has notable relatives (that does not make him notable), he has self-published a number of books (which does not make him notable), he has had minor roles in a few TV shows (not something that makes him notable), he has donated to charitable causes, and he has a website. Neither of which is a criterion for notability. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield any independent sources. And the discussion at Draft talk:Vinayak Singh Oberoi as well as the article creator's talk page doesn't give me any confidence that they will understand or respect a "delete" outcome of a community discussion, so salting is probably necessary. --bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better not to salt, so we can catch this with WP:G4. I strongly suspect that if this particular title is salted, we'll get this recreated at variants on the name instead. -- asilvering (talk) 04:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I struck my !vote to salt. --bonadea contributions talk 09:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable self-publicist. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Alvin Kwabena Ansah

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. The sources are the usual PRs I expect and obvious paid promotions on the papers covered in a brown envelope. Not even a single source from here or a cursory search is GNG-worthy. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most of the sources are promotional pieces like this. There are also element of source farming from this and this. All the sources cannot establish WP:GNG nor WP:ANYBIO. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find any source that says that this person has done something notable. As an academic, his citation and number of scientific contribution is very low and no awards at all. As an entrepreneur, I cannot find any coverage about the company or him doing something exceptional. The article reads like a resume. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG, NPROF. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrington Subway

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

Article about a piece of transportation infrastructure, not reliably sourced as having any serious notability claim. Just to be clear, this is a subway in the sense of "single road passing under a graded crossing", not in the sense of "underground metro system", so it isn't automatically notable enough for its own standalone article just because it exists -- millions of roads pass under other roads or railway lines all over the world, so such things are just run of the mill without some kind of historical, social or political context for why they might be more significant than most other underpasses.
But this, as written, just says that the subject is a thing that exists, without providing any context for why its existence might warrant an encyclopedia article about it -- and it cites just one footnote that glancingly namechecks the underpass without being about the underpass in any non-trivial sense, which is not enough coverage to get the underpass over WP:GNG all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Tamil Nadu. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one source in the article which barely mentions the subway and clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 18:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any significant coverage of this run-of-the-mill underpass. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolle Verma

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

This article fails WP:BIO, due to insufficient reliable secondary sources about Nicolle Verma. The references are primarily promotional and fail to establish her independent notability under WP:GNG violating WP:NOTPROMO. Nxcrypto Message 15:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Nxcrypto Message 15:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved with references and secondary sources from the press and media of reputed TV channels and newspapers.

It is neither promotional nor insufficient now. Intalk (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Intalk It seems like you haven't read WP:NOTINHERITED. Nxcrypto Message 04:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you, notability is not inherited. However there are several references that have been added to the article wherein it is visible that a 17 year old girl is achieving success in her own right by organising world class sports events abroad, involved in philanthropic midday meal schemes for the poor in India. At the age of 17 kids are playing video games and roller blading and not thinking about the poor. Read the articles that are added as source and if you still feel that my article does not pass muster then the decision is yours. I have been editing wiki for last 7 years, I don't indulge in any kind of promotion. Intalk (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject Nicolle Verma is a notable figure in Romania and India both. She has been involved in philanthropic activities herself and several articles in the Indian press are referenced. Also, she organised a kabaddi match in Dubai on her own at a stadium with Bollywood actor Suniel Shetty as the Chief Guest. This person passes muster with WP guidelines on WP:GNG and passes all tests. If 17 year olds who are being covered by the press in a foreign country and their work is being appreciated by the masses, then what would pass WP guidelines?

I vote to KEEP the article. Intalk (talk) 04:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poorly formatted article with references mainly talking about the relatives of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — random rich girl, not encyclopedic material. — Biruitorul ^Talk 10:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:DandelionAndBurdock
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Verma Family Website	This is her family's official website.	Presumably, per WP:ABOUTSELF	The cited page is about Abhishek Verma, doesn't mention Nicolle once.	✘ No
The Verma Family Youtube	This is her family's official youtube channel	Presumably, per WP:ABOUTSELF	I only watched five seconds, but I'll be generous.	✘ No
LiveUtterPradesh and AajKikHabar.	These two have identical copy, indicating that they they likely just WP:PRSOURCEs and not independent journalism.	~ Presumably accurate information about the shelter.	Mentions Nicolle a few times with a few pictures her looking pretty, but it's all in context of the shelter opening, nothing about her specifically.	✘ No
NKTV, OutlookIndia and RepublicWorld	Same as above, identical copy and obvious churnalism. Should have been noticed by the article creator.	~ I imagine the information about Kabaddi is accurate, even if the language is a bit over the top.	This only mentions Nicolle Verma once, in passing.	✘ No
BusinessStandard	Credit where it's due, this is clearly labled as a press release.	~ Again, I assume the sports information is accurate.	This mentions Abhishek Verma once in passing but doesn't mention Nicolle once.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Delete as there is zilch independent coverage (see source assesment). Teenagers volunteering at a soup kitchen to bolster their resumé isn't out of the ordinary, if anything I'd say it's probably no less common than rollerblading as hobby. The author may want to refer to WP:42. -- D'n'B-t -- 20:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor page about a daughter of a billionaire that reads more as WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Subject is not notable, by any measure of notability one could conceive of. Turgidson (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable and sources only mention the subject in passing. Article also fails NPOV. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerking

AfDs for this article:

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

Already soft deleted once in 2012 (not eligible for G4), the only non-primary source that is given this time is [14] which is far from being in-depth. With a WP:BEFORE, the only additional source I found is [15], of which I'm not sure of the reliability. Not very optimistic for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is certainly a well-known product in Northern Europe, but I was not able to find significant coverage of it online. Only sales sites and forum discussions. Something might be buried somewhere, maybe in trade press. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. At this point no one has challenged the deletion rationale, but there is little participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A passing mention in an energy drink review is the only reliable source I can find mentioning this product. Even the Swedish and Finnish Wikipedias, where the product is more popular, don't have an expanded range of sources. Fails WP:GNG. Jordano^5³ 15:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I searched in both Finnish and Swedish, but could only find retailer product listings and similar, nothing that would come even close to satisfying the GNG standard. Yes, it's a reasonably well-known product in those countries, but that's not a notability criterion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Also noting that the nominator is a now-blocked sock. Sandstein 15:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inequality by Design

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

Completely unsourced article that furthermore does not even seem to reflect the book's actual content. The notability of this minor book (which is just one of multiple such books with an article here!) discussing The Bell Curve is also questionable. Lamptonian (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several reviews are in the further reading, off of which this already passes NBOOK. I'm not even going to bother looking for more but I would bet there are - it is not "completely unsourced". PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reviewed in Library Journal(here), Intelligence (journal) (here), Political Science Quarterly (here), Journal of the American Statistical Association (here), European Sociological Review (here), Contemporary Sociology (here), Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics (here) and Personnel Psychology (journal) (here). I could keep going (my library's search alone shows at least 35 reviews), but I think it's clear this meets NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above reviews. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Elvenking (band). (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aydan Baston

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

No sign of notability from sources listed, and no further sources to meet WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elvenking (band), the band he's a member of, which could have been boldly done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elvenking (band). No indication of signifiance for a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y21

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

No pages named "Y21" to disambiguate Gjs238 (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is correct as a DAB page. It's a Japanese train station code, likely to identify the year. Other articles use Y20, Y19 and etc. Often appears in the article "Line" section, This just needed a little adjustment to work with the text. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to delete this legitimate disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who music releases. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 13:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who Is Dr Who

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

My deletion proposal:

Found no evidence of notability. Only source I found discussing this album was this self-published zine.

The proposal was removed by Mushy Yank who suggested a merger instead; however, given the lack of coverage, I don't think it'd be DUE to give this any more of a place than it already has in its tiny entry in List of Doctor Who music releases. I suppose a redirect there would be appropriate. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Albums and songs. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above or merge as I suggested myself, mentioned in Booy, M. (2012). Love and Monsters: The Doctor Who Experience, 1979 to the Present, I.B.Tauris, describing the overall content and mentioning the fact that the BBC had intended to launch a series of records.-Mushy Yank. 12:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a detailed review from scifi.com that is listed in the article. The CD receives mentions for different songs on pages 205, 206, and 207. If there was a second review, this topic would be notable. I support a redirect to List of Doctor Who music releases per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 12:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 11:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Ross (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This from Stuff is clear sigcov. Further coverage from the Dominion Post and again in same indicate he's of at least regional notability. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 11:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above from Ser!, there is significant coverage in local media, and I have edited the article to include these references plus one other I found. Ewhite31 (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears SPORTBASIC is met.Canary757 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kutay Eryoldaş

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Turkey. Bgsu98 (Talk) 10:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only thing approaching SIGCOV I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Noriega

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

Fails to meet notability criteria under WP:AUTHOR, doesn't appear to be many secondary sources on him. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. jolielover♥talk 09:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find independent sources. There are hints of awards, but I couldn't find any that name him. The link to the Edward R Murrow award lists Vice World News and Noriega is prominent in the video. Yet I don't find sources about him. Lamona (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 04:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Roosenbrand

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a few things for this one. dartfreakz [16], this [17], ~~wegdamnieuws [18]~~, aavisie [19], almelonineuws[20]. Nothing spectacular but some notability. I will have a closer look at these later before nominating a vote and will also consider any feedback.Canary757 (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources look minor so I am not opposing deletion unless better ones are found.Canary757 (talk) 12:49, 18 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!} 08:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't think the coverage above meets WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile development framework

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Multiple phone web-based application framework

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

Cruft-magnet - unsourced and out of date list containing original research. Long tagged as such and nothing has been done to address the issue. Doesn't look as if there's anything of value to preserve by moving to other articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 8 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!} 09:17, 15 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!} 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. The two "keep" opinions are disregarded because one is a pure vote and the other asserts, but does not establish notability by citing relevant sources. Sandstein 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Gimba

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

Fails WP:GNG. Almost all the sources are press releases and the remaining sources focus on the ceremonial activities of the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Publisher of a non-notable organisation created as a possible promo who doesn’t meet the general notability criteria for biography of living persons. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If notability is based on doing something that is worthy of notice and having significant coverage from reliable and independent sources concerning a subject than this is notable.

Jonahakuso (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC) — Jonahakuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep

Esti92 (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 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!} 08:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's enough to keep. Some news, large and well-known kind of aircraft crashing with fatalities. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the aircraft type and whether the accident had casualties or not is not an argument based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There was news coverage, but that alone is not a reason to keep. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, @Aviationwikiflight, has a final report for this accident been released yet? if there has it might determine the notability of this accident (uniqueness etc.)

Anyways besides that, my vote as of current is a weak keep, seeing it was an illegal flight on a heavy aircraft makes it somewhat notable as illegal flights (especially on heavy aircraft such as the Antonov An-12) are generally rare and notable, the above will determine a possible sway of my vote. Lolzer3k 15:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, no final report has been released (if an investigation was even started). I don’t necessarily see the release of a final report, nor the opposite, as indicative of notability since it should be common practice among investigative agencies to release them. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 17 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!} 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that it happened and was documented does not make it notable. It needs more than a brief burst of news coverage. Keep rationales to this point have been based on things that are not relevant to notability. Open to a selective merge if a merge target is suggested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the accident had some fatalities, it isn’t too relevant. At most, they can be unsourced stubs that simply don’t add anything relevant to enciclopedia. Also, fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Protoeus (talk)
Delete: Per nom. Limited coverage but nothing more since then. WP:NOTNEWS. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsey Road Warehouse

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

Non-notable logistics warehouse for the National Security Agency. The NSA likely has hundreds of such warehouses to store equipment, most of which do not pass WP:GNG, like this one. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Hanover, Maryland where it is located - might not be enough for a standalone article, but worth mentioning on the location page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. No point in a merge to the page for the town; this is a WP:MILL warehouse, one of dozens in Hanover. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of NSA-operated warehouses in Hanover? That's probably news to everyone, including the NSA! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are dozens of warehouses/distribution centers in Hanover. This is not a unique and important facility in Hanover and would not be worth even including in that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete or if we have to, merge back to parent NSA article. This is really near the nadir of notability: "NSA has a nearby warehouse to hold their spare stuff." Big whoop-de-do. And no, don't merge to Hanover, as this is just one of dozens such facilities in an extensive industrial/business area. Mangoe (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Joseph Adama

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

A non notable article that fails WP:GNG or WP: ANYBIO. The article establishes it's Notability with promotional pieces such as this, this and this [21]. Also, with numerous press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails basic WP:BIO, and is possibly the article author Joseph4real1995 . This mentions his early life and basic career path. But there are no accomplishments. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources does not establish the general notability criteria, and the awards “bagged” does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. The subject fails W:GNG and W:BIO. Atibrarian (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gender and Trade Initiative

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

This NGO fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dependent solely on the lone primary source . The term "Gender and Trade" might be a term used in India, but it makes no sense on this end. Why are they seemingly locked together as one? — Maile (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CybageAsha

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

This NGO fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Baldoni

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

I don't see how the person is notable for anything other than marrying a film producer. A source search at this point only turned up sources about said producer [redacted]. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the previous reply. She has been in prominent roles in the past and is currently still acting. Her most recent role is in It Ends with Us which was released earlier this year. Foreverxnature (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets NACTOR: prominent roles in Coherence (film), Identical (film), The Lost Tribe (2010 film) and Grizzly Park. I must comment that the WP:BEFORE apparently consisted of removing the list of notable films and tv series where she appeared before nominating the article. Sjö (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Clearly meets NACTOR, and I consider a nomination borderline bad-faith when it guts the article to a stub immediately before AfD. Chubbles (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does pass NACTOR. Keivan.f^Talk 21:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NACTOR. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above. Kiwipat (talk) 06:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, she has been credited in major films and removing her page would just decrease information on wikipedia Niccommon (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has been in many notable films. We should not delete article based on assumption of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonitueBera (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage. Meets NACTOR. Mysecretgarden (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Narlikar

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

Fails WP:NBIO, and WP:NPROF. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Academics and educators. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation profile in GS[22] seems healthy (top citations 501, 413, 319, 272, 231, with a further 12 >100 citns) meeting my definition of WP:PROF by citations. There are also supposedly 12 books, with the ones listed being published by high-quality academic/general publishers, which are likely to have received sufficient reviews to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
255 JSTOR hits making finding book reviews a chore but here's four to be going along with: The World Trade Organization: A Very Short Introduction JSTOR 4092662; International Trade and Developing Countries: Bargaining Coalitions in the WTO JSTOR 20097936; New Powers: How to Become One and How to Manage Them JSTOR 29777521; Deadlocks in Multilateral Negotiations. Causes and Solutions JSTOR 43122662 Espresso Addict (talk) 08:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily enough book reviews of enough books (now added to the article) for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An easy pass of WP:AUTHOR. The case for WP:PROF#C1 also appears decent; an h-index of 30 and 17 papers with triple-digit citation counts don't hurt, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I have decided to withdraw my nomination from the current AfD about Amrita Narlikar. After considering the community’s feedback and rethinking my position, I believe this is the best choice. I am grateful for everyone’s time and effort in this discussion and respect the teamwork that makes Wikipedia better. I hope my withdrawal helps simplify the process and leads to a positive outcome. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 09:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune Prime

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP: NCORP. The article is supported by promotional and puff piece such as this and press releases such as this and this. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, per above reasoning. Despite WP:RSNG saying that Blueprint is a "generally reliable" source, the source that focuses on the paper itself is very suspiciously promotional. The other two sources focus on an awards show associated with the newspaper, which I don't believe to establish notability. Upon searching, the only other mentions in notable news sources are about the paper's founder opening up a hospital, which also doesn't establish notability. Jordano^5³ 07:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources here does not reach the landmark for corporations as sources lack CORPDEPTH. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. People disagree about whether the media coverage this political activist and streamer has received is significant enough to warrant inclusion per WP:GNG. I originally wanted to express an opinion of my own to break the tie but couldn't make up my mind myself - it looks like a borderline situation to me. Accordingly, I'm closing this as no consensus. Sandstein 09:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaden McNeil

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

I can't actually see a reason that McNeil is notable himself. Yes, there are a load of sources mentioning the unpleasant comments that he comes out with, but he simply seems to be someone who has tagged along with other unpleasant characters, and has been noted as such by reliable sources. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Conspiracy theories, and Discrimination. Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says in the Wikipedia guidelines if there's reliable sources about an individual, that's what determined notability. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:SIGCOV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:57, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is another in a long line of far-right nobodies who is only recognized for having a beef with another far-right personality. Does not satisfy WP:N, definitely does not satisfy WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's been very little discussion of specific sources, so I've gone ahead and started by making a source assessment table based on sources in the article:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
The Kansas City Star	This is a WP:INDEPENDENT WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	This is a reliable WP:NEWSORG	The source is principally about the article subject.	✔ Yes
The Manhattan Mercury	This is an independent daily mainstream newspaper doing its own reporting.	This is a 140-year-old well-established daily newspaper; WP:NEWSORG.	This source is directly covering the article subject in a substantial way, with the whole source principally focused on the article subject.	✔ Yes
Anti-defamation league	Moot as not SIGCOV	Moot as not SIGCOV	He gets name-dropped once, but that's about all the coverage he gets.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 1	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
The Collegian (KSU) 2	Student media. Per WP:RSSM, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.	Why not?	deadlink, but moot per WP:RSSM.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 1	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	This coverage is principally about McNeil.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 2	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	McNeil is not so much as mentioned by name once.	✘ No
Southern Poverty Law Center 3	Why not?	Per WP:RSP, The Southern Poverty Law Center is considered generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States.	There's plenty of coverage of McNeil and Dickerman as a sort of group, but little of McNeil alone. In any case, going to be moot as WP:N notes that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability, and we already have a contributing SPLC source above.	? Unknown
The Kansas City Star 2	Independent WP:NEWSORG	A WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting	Seems to give substantial coverage to McNeil and his activities.	✔ Yes
The Daily Dot's "God" blog	Sure?	While WP:DAILYDOT is MREL, but looking more broadly at the God blog archives this looks like an opinionated blog that's just hosted on the platfom.	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	✘ No
BroBible	Sure?	~ I can't find anything in the WP:RSN archives or at WP:NPPSG, but this feel a lot like a WP:DEXERTO-level source	Seems to be about McNeil and reaction to his actions.	~ Partial
Inside Higher Ed	Why not?	WP:NEWSORG	We've got two paragraphs about McNeil that pass the WP:100WT for independent prose, albeit barely.	✔ Yes
The Kansas City Star 3	Independent WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG	WP:NEWSORG doing their own report principally about the subject and his activities.	✔ Yes
Southern Poverty Law Center 4	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	This is the same url as source 6	✔ Yes
MEL Magazine	Sure?	~ RSN archives treat this as a mixed reliability source.	Three paragraphs about McNeil and his activities, passes the WP:100WT.	~ Partial
Mother Jones	Why not?	Per WP:MOTHERJONES, source is WP:GREL.	Five paragraphs are given in the article to coverage of McNeil; this is clearly SIGCOV.	✔ Yes
Vice	Why not?	~ The community doesn't have consensus regarding VICE's reliability.	Seems to provide significant secondary coverage of McNeil and his making allegations against Fuentes.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

What this reveals is that, based on solely sources in the article, McNeil has received WP:SIGCOV from at least the following sources:

The Kansas City Star: 1, 2, 3
The Manhattan Mercury: 1
Southern Poverty Law Center: 1, maybe 2
Mother Jones: 1.

This alone would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and, as there appears to be multiple events covered among these sources, this doesn't look like a WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E case. The additional sources that one can google regarding the McNeil-KSU football affair really do drive home that not all of his coverage is about Nick Fuentes or storming the U.S. capitol:

McNeil-KSU football affair additional sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sports Illustrated The Manhattan Mercury Yahoo! News The Sporting News AP 1 and 2 ESPN KC Star USA Today

As such, I think we have an individual here who easily passes WP:GNG, for whom no suitable merge target exists, and I think nom's contention that this is only someone who is covered in the context of Fuentes is plainly incorrect. In light of the breadth of coverage and the deep sourcing, there is nothing reasonable to do here but to keep.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thanks to Red-tailed hawk for assessing the sources. Looks like GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More about the controversial things said and the fallout than about the individual, from the sources. "Streamer says things, ruffles feathers, than fades away" seems to be the extent of what we have. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG and SIGCOV are clearly met. Reliable sources like ADL, the Kansas city star, the Manhatten Mercury, Southern poverty law center all cover this individual. This goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. According with Wikipedia's guidelines, Notability isn't determined on what a certain individual is notable for, but if reliable sources cover him. However if it was the opposite, well they cover his falling out with Fuentes, His views, His association with Nick Fuentes, him being held accountable by Kansas State University for an offensive joke, him getting a girlfriend, etc. I don't even know why this is a discussion. His Wikipedia page has been up for about two years with barely anyone saying anything because it's common sense this goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable, this person wasn't notable before that happened. I'd be looking for extensive coverage of them before the event, which we don't seem to have. I've done things as a student and was held accountable, that's not really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b you've might've done bad things as a student, but news sources didn't cover it. Again, Wikipedia's notability policy are if reliable sources cover something, not "this isn't something I think is news worthy or topic worthy". As for "there needs to be extensive coverage of him before the Kansas University incident", why? Why does it matter what the first news source about him said? If multiple reliable sources cover him and different incidents involving him afterwards, that goes with Wikipedia's notability policy. But here, here's a news story covering him before the Kansas University incident. https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nicholas-fuentes-america-first-infighting also I saw ESPN cover Jaden McNeil too, multiple reliable sources cover this guy, I'm struggling to understand why this is a discussion. Wikipedia's guidelines is clear as day. Wikipedia's guidelines say nothing about if you think something's news worthy, but if news outlets consider it news worthy. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That incident, for what it's worth, has been turned into a academic case study. It's not just that a kid said something inflammatory, it's that the incident was nationally covered and continued to receive attention in academics even after it was out of the news (in addition to the case study, described in a Ph.D. thesis). I think that reducing this to " Student says bad things " isn't terribly notable is a gross oversimplification here that misses just how big this was—and also ignores coverage in the context of other events as well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given above and on the talk page already. Two newspapers from his area discussing him, and Mother Jones and the SPLC discussing him in the context of someone else, and for an edgy remark he made, do not make him worthy of an entire article. Swinub★ 04:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swinub as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, ESPN, Yahoo News, USA today, sports illustrated and other huge mainstream sources cover thie guy. It's not just two news papers. And he's not only mentioned in the context of Nick Fuentes and an edgy tweet he made in 2020, as pointed out by me in multiple examples earlier. And as pointed out by red-tailed hawk, he easily passes WP:GNG HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more. Swinub★ 05:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every source posted by Red-tailed hawk is about the Floyd tweet and nothing more... no, that is patently false. SPLC covers this individual applying for and receiving Paycheck Protection Program funds, and Mother Jones doesn't so much as mention that inflammatory Tweet, but does provide significant coverage of this individual. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I'm reading above, the firing is notable, I'm not sure the individual is. Could perhaps create an article about the incident itself. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b there's numerous reliable sources that cover different incidents regarding Jaden McNeil DisneyGuy744 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of significant coverage. Look, lots of people, but especially the bad, are famous for being famous. Bearian (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like most of us agree it should stay DisneyGuy744 (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments seem evenly divided between Delete and Keep. The existence of RS coverage is not in doubt but some editors argue that it isn't SIGCOV enough to establish notability. Editors are warned not to BLUDGEON this discussion and contest every opinion they disagree with.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think we're done here. Looks like the opposers have given up HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Swinub★ 22:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sw 36914 You got called out for lying in this AfD discussion. And keep trying to get me banned by saying I'm not here to build an encyclopedia, without any proof. What makes you think that's gonna work? @Liz I think we're done here. 100% of the people are not going to agree to keep the page, but an administrator gave reasons why the page should stay and showed examples on how it goes with Wikipedia's guidelines. 100% are not going to agree, but if most people do, we should end the discussion. Being here forever is pointless. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misread his reply and noticed my error a day later, as I'm not paying too close attention to this page. I apologize for the mistake, but it was not intentional. As for us "being done here," we're not; let other people give their input. You've given yours already. Swinub★ 04:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're done here HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HumansRightsIsCool, this might be a surprise if you haven't participated in many AFDs before but the participants can't declare that a discussion is over and should be closed. An AFD discussion is closed when a closer sees that a consensus has been reached or decides, after several relistings, that no consensus is possible. In situations like this discussion, this is likely to happen if a few more editors participate in this discussion and offer their arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been days since a new editor sent a message here. Lots of editors were showing up, but it stopped once everyone kinda realized this discussion is pointless. administrators like Red-tailed hawk gave examples on how McNeil's page goes with Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, considering how multiple reliable sources cover different incidents involving Jaden McNeil. Swinub is never going to agree the page should stay, no matter how many examples you give of this Wikipedia article going with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Are we supposed to stay here for 3 years? Someone get a AdF closer to decide the fate of the article, not everyone's gonna agree. No matter what. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz explained how this works, demanding someone come in and give you satisfaction is not a good look. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AdF? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

think he meant Afd - articles for deletion 2603:8080:600:87B:D2F5:7B10:A18C:526E (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Respectfully, I do have to take issue with the relisting comment. The opposition to the notability here, as articulated by Swinub and Oaktree b, is that the sort of stuff that he has been covered for does not make him worth an article—not that WP:SIGCOV isn't met. It's essentially a set of (attempted) WP:IAR deletion !votes. And neither The Hand That Feeds You nor Black Kite have attempted to do a source-by-source analysis, and neither of them has made a substantial comment about notability after the source assessment table was dropped.

That is in marked contrast to my keep !vote, which identified specific sources and described how each of them specifically contribute towards meeting the WP:GNG. If individuals don't believe that this person meets the WP:GNG, they are free to argue so. But I would very much like to see what they think is wrong about the source assessment table, and I'm quite saddened that nobody has articulated that here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm feeling involved here so I'll just bow out of this AFD discussion and let another closer handle this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it’s been well articulated here that this article meets the WP:GNG, what else is to be discussed? This has gone on long enough IMO and the article should keep its status. Theorescam (talk) 02:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Oyekan

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and has no WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, Nigeria, United Arab Emirates, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the challenge with cryptocurrency enterprenuers. This fellow has been building and gaining recognition for it since 2017, what else is sustained notabillity? WP:SUSTAINED

It also sufficiently satisfies WP:NOTPROMOTION. Oyindebrah (talk) 09:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Oyindebrah:I am still finding it very difficult to understand how this article is not promotional? Or are there any other sources apart from those listed in the article? Ok, let's take a brief look at them. Shall we?

Source 1 is a promotional piece. The lead of the article clearly started with puffy sentences: Danny Oyekan can be said to have the entrepreneurial spirit ingrained in him from birth. How is that even possible? Another one: He was amongst the first wave of Bitcoin investors and is considered a pioneer in establishing the use of virtual currency in the African market. Who named him pioneer?

Source 2 is unreliable and full of promotional pieces. From the first sentence Danny Oyekan is a trailblazing tech entrepreneur, investor, passionate advocate for blockchain technology, and founding Chairman of Dan Holdings to the last His journey serves as an inspiration to aspiring entrepreneurs and cryptocurrency enthusiasts, showcasing the transformative power of embracing emerging technologies and forging one's path to success are purely promotional.

Source 3: Error 500

4 and 5: promotional pieces, Daniel Oyekan’s journey in the world of investment is rooted in his belief in the potential of new technologies and groundbreaking ideas. I also find it very odd that two independent news media will publish the same post words for words. It can only happen if a PR is involved.

Sources 6, 7 and 8 is about BlockFinex and the rest are press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am able to access source 3 and I can confirm that it is a sponsored post. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Ibjaja055. Entry on subject is based solely on sponsored posts that are obviously not independent thus failing the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://fij.ng/article/dubai-based-daniel-oyekan-borrowed-40000-from-friend-then-vanished/

https://tribuneonlineng.com/daniel-oyekans-coins-app-sparks-global-social-payments-revolution/

https://guardian.ng/news/we-believe-fintech-is-the-future-dan-holdings-danny-oyekan/#google_vignette Oyindebrah (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oyindebrah, this doesn’t cut it. We need independent, secondary significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Krusz

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

This is all routine local coverage. Subject served in the marines and owns a car wash, not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 03:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 08:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing more than routine coverage, so is not notable. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Mahsud. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal khel

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

Another administrator said that a clan (tribe) is not subject to WP:A7. I disagree, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'm nominating it for deletion. I have no idea how to evaluate whether a clan meets WP:GNG. I suspect, though, that others in the community are more knowledgeable. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above article mentions Jalal Khel or Jalalkhel clan is a sub-division of Mahsud Wazir larger

Pashtun tribe. In my brief search, I saw this.....Mehsuds and Wazirs, the King-makers in a game of thrones on khyber.org website...Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this stub with Mahsud if the information in it is verifiable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 15 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!} 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Blade

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

Nominated on behalf of a non-autoconfirmed user claiming to be the article subject:

Does not meet Wikipedia criteria for notability BladeTerry (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263157720

I am the subject of this article, Terry Blade.
— Edit summary of Special:Diff/1263146142

I am the subject of this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Blade. I don't think it meets the notability criteria for an article on Wikipedia. The article is semi-protected. I'd like to request that an editor nominate it for deletion please? BladeTerry (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
— Special:Diff/1263156892

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough sources here to merit an article per WP:GNG. The context of this AFD attempt is that I created a sockpuppet case page at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roberteditor, tying together a bunch of IPs and some socks that have been editing the Terry Blade bio and related pages. Two hours and change later, User:BladeTerry registered the username to delete the bio. My guess is that the history of socking is what BladeTerry wants deleted. Binksternet (talk) 08:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not the best quality article for sure, and some of the cited sources are better than others. But based on WP:BLP, Blade seems to meet the criteria of having multiple reliable independent sources. Him not wanting an article isn't a criteria for BLP. guninvalid (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I referenced the wrong part of BLP, my bad, but my argument still stands. Whether he likes it or not, this guy is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and should be treated as one. If there are specific allegations or specific sections of the article that are undercited, those can be removed. But blanket removing the article in whole is inexcusable. guninvalid (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has a ton of problems, and Binksternet fixed many of them some time back with me trying to assist. The real question is simply "does he pass WP:GNG?" and I have to say yes, he does, although barely, as demonstrated by the sources, and the claim of winning the American Songwriting contest. If the subject of the article can be verified as the editor who wants it deleted, I would probably be ok deleting it because it isn't a slam dunk on notability, and we have a long history of respecting the subject's wishes with borderline notability cases. 14.1.92.185 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC) (aka: Dennis Brown, trying to take a wikibreak logged out but reading my talk page....)[reply]
Keep. The article could be improved, but agree with the consensus that subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC No.1 and No. 9. Beyond what's cited in the article, this Earmilk article about the subject is one of the first listed on Google. Dug further and see the subject in a past issue of New Music Weekly, listed on page 33 under the "Country Up & Coming" chart, which is evidence he might also be notable per No. 11 of WP:NMUSIC. Rainydaywindows (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centipede!

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

Simple google news search yield one result related to the movie Here from Yahoo News. It both fails WP:NFP and WP:NFO. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 02:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added some sources. See for yourself.-Mushy Yank. 02:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources that have been added, there is another review here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another review (in German). The article was only 3.5 hours old when nominated, but has been improved. Geschichte (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and reviews found. Toughpigs (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nesser

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

This appears to be a borderline WP:NBIO case that falls just short of passing the criteria. The subject does have some of his own accomplishments in the realm of skateboarding, but the coverage seems insufficient by WP:SIGCOV standards. Source 1 is a passing mention of him in a list of names, source 2 is dead and I couldn't find an archive, source 3 is an interview so not independent, and the only other sources are dead links to what appears to be his defunct website. A WP:BEFORE search led me to minor coverage from skateboarding magazines, and more interviews and primary sources. This guy does appear closer to his own notability than the limited sourcing on this page would portend, but I couldn't find enough coverage of him in my BEFORE search to quite hit the threshold of WP:GNG. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible secondary sourcing, doesn't meet WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From ProQuest, I was able to find [[23]] but without more independent coverage there isn't enough here for the WP:GNG to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2024 (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.