Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 11	February 13 >

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral Link

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

Can find no independent sourcing of substance in the article or elsewhere. Fails WP:NCORP. Edwardx (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV of the firm, as well as being mostly WP:PRIMARY. Fails WP:NCORP. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. Sources only prove existence, not notability. Fails 201.226.200.75 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jens Beckmann

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

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

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

I think, we should keep the article. I will try to find a source for the honorary degree from Novosibirsk - he told me in person, that he got one, but I don't have a source.

Also he is the first person, who found a stable nitrene and published an article about that, which is a huge deal in this field. ScienceBecky (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is lacking in references in a few places, but the discovery of a stable nitrene is discussed in multiple sources that give Beckmann more than a passing mention as part of the work. It's tough but I lean towards passing WP:GNG if considering the Chemistry World and C&EN articles on top of the Novosibirsk doctorate (if true). Recon rabbit 14:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have advertised this AfD at Wikiproject Chemistry in the hope of getting an expert opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Honorary degrees can potentially count toward C1, they aren't guaranteed to be contributory, especially when they're not from world-renowned institutions. They definitely don't count toward GNG. The write-ups about his nitrene work are fairly standard, though they're not insignificant. I don't see a GNG pass here, but I might check his Scopus metrics to see if they line up with notability in this field. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am probably the only other chemist here commenting on this professor of chemistry. His record is notable: "270 peer-reviewed publications, 9 book chapters and 16 patent applications."? The article is peacocky, but we can address that issue.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Smokefoot, I think we have to be careful here. Based upon his Scopus profile his highest cited paper here has 108 citations, plus his citations have taken a slight downturn since 2020. The journals look decent (CCR, JACS, Angewandte). However, at least in solid-state physics or materials science these numbers are not impressive. They are also low compared to chemists I have collaborated with. If his honorary degree is major, as I said in my nomination, I am OK with him squeezing past the notability bar, but it remains unconfirmed. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: A bit on the fence right now, leaning towards keep for now per Reconrabbit.

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. There are multiple old sources with SIGCOV. Can use them from expansion. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Harayda

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

Courtesy request from article subject via VTRS 2024122010000181. The basis of the request is that the subject is not very well known, the sources used in the article are mostly so old as to be inaccurate and/or misleading and the lack of recent sources reinforces that the subject has no lasting nobility. The quality of some of the sources lacks reliability even if the news sources themselves are generally reliable, the specific sources are not and are towards the gossip column end of journalism e.g. [1] Nthep (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I highly disagree with the subject, and reliable sources being old does not make it so that they don't work. There is no requirement for recent sources. Chicago Tribune and York Daily Record show notability alone. This was also a DYK in 2020. As for the pointed to source, I don't like sourced negative content being removed if it is still found to be true - especially removed by the subject. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there has been any attempt to remove the pointed to source by the subject or anyone else. Nthep (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that the sources are "old" isn't a reason to delete. Moreover, as a widely published author and critic (e.g. books, plus pieces in Glamour, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Plain Dealter, Harper's Bazaar) who blogs on a "daily or near-daily basis" to over 9,000 followers (here), she doesn't appear to be an inherently private person. There are more than 3,000 hits for her in Newspapers.com, including WP:SIGCOV starting in 1970 and continuing well into the 1990s. See, e.g., here, here, here, here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sufficient SIGCOV is existing even if by old sources. BTSfangir1 (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proquest has >500 hits for quoted name, the top two pages of which seem to be respectable book reviews (lots), biographical coverage (eg ROBERT STRAUSS. Ivy League or Briar Patch?: After Four Issues, the Editor of the Princeton Alumni Weekly, Not an Alumna, Is Gone. New York Times 05 Dec 1999: NJ6) and, more recently, coverage of her book review blog (eg Booby prize books. Telegraph 02 Mar 2007 & David Nason. The Australian 30 Jan 2008: 5. & Charles, Ron. Two thumbs up! (I hated it). The Washington Post. 2013. [mention only but shows she was still gaining national attention for her writing in 2013]). Notability is not temporary, old sources are fine. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable author. If there are concerns about gossip or trivia in her biography they can be addressed through edit requests. pburka (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dimartinia

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

Why the page should be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Subject of a peer reviewed and published paper. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify Per apparent desire of the paper's authors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose there is a minuscule chance that the entire designation will still be scuppered at this late stage, but frankly, I would need to see some specific examples to consider that an actual risk from our point of view. Reputable journal, multiple established scientists, apparently great diagnostic material - this is not going to sink between pre-pub and publication. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ In addition to points that were already raised, I will note that paleontologists themselves in general do consider early article versions to be subjects to public discussion. Press releases frequently appear after the online publication of the early article versions, the authors of the studies talk about them on social media before the publication of the final version, and they even get cited and discussed in other papers before the publication of the final version (occasionally resulting in cases such as Buffetaut (2011) citing and discussing Naish et al. (2012), obviously referring to the early article version as the final of version of the latter article has a later publication date than the final version of the former one). So the argument for removal of the article is based on stricter criteria regarding what publically available information can and should be discussed than the criteria used by the scientific community itself.
As for the risk of differences between the early version and the final version of the article, thousand of new fossil taxa were named during the past 12 years and I can only remember a single case when a new taxon named in the early version ended up removed from the final version of the article. So the risk does not seem to be significant.--Macrochelys (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- However, if Lmalena's comment that both articles came to their knowledge through one of the authors is supposed to mean that the authors of the study naming the new taxon discussed are in fact opposed to the Wikipedia article about the taxon being created before the final version of the article is available, then I think moving the article to the draftspace would be justified, as a courtesy to the authors.--Macrochelys (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, what is that “single case”? 49.144.198.58 (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The early version of this article originally named a new species Ventilago "fujianensis", which ended up not named in the final version.--Macrochelys (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an misunderstanding about what means pre-proof here. This is a draft, it is not published and peer reviewed here means that it has been seen by reviewers, not that their concerns has been addressed. If one of them asked for changes in the phylogenetical analysis, the final version can change drastically. The author that called me, is not sure how much it is going to change and does not want these articles. These taxon names are also not valid under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Chapter 5, 21.8.3., until proper publication. Lmalena (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I don't think we should ignore the author's explicit wish, though I don't see the deletion of the article as necessary to address points raised in this discussion. I support move to the draftspace until the publication of the final version of the study. Possible changes introduced in the final version of the study can then be added to the draft before moving it back to the mainspace.--Macrochelys (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If one of the authors allegedly don't want this article right now, then I would also agree moving it to the draftspace. But (though I know this is far from the scope of this talk page) does that mean you think every article about prehistoric taxa which are never officially described in peer-reviewed journal (only appearing in pre-proof or thesis) and are currently nomina nuda or considered invalid/unsuable names should all be deleted? (like Hadongsuchus and Ubirajara jubatus for example I mentioned above) Junsik1223 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be deleted. I think that, in principle, if there is publically available information about such taxa then creation of articles about them is justified. As I said, move to the draftspace in response to explicit wish of the author would be justified by courtesy to the author, and not by any general ban on articles about such taxa.--Macrochelys (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, you’re saying the authors of the paper want the articles deleted? How did they communicate to you (email, talk page etc.) Can you provide a link or screenshot to their communication? 2001:4453:52E:6F00:756D:A9D4:5F4C:5208 (talk) 08:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal communication. I didn't think that it would so hard to take out articles of not valid taxa. At least, not valid yet. I also support move to the draftspace until the publication of the final version of the study. Lmalena (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personal as in, in-person? Face to face? 2001:4453:592:3C00:C492:1F3A:6D96:E43C (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not necessarily opposed to 'draftifying' the article for now, but we don't currently have any explicit evidence that the author is opposed to the page's current existence. Could that be provided? -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the final version of the article naming Dimartinia was published in the meantime, so presumably there is no reason to continue the discussion?--Macrochelys (talk) 20:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Now that it is a valid name, there's no reason to remove this article. Junsik1223 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Academic journals are increasingly discussing this topic. I recently did a search on Google Scholar ([2]) and ScienceDirect ([3]). Z. Patterson (talk) 05:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2023–24 Ranji Trophy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2023–24 Ranji Trophy Group A

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

Strange to have Group B and Group C and Group D redirected, but not Group A. This one should be redirected too for consistency if we aren't going to have separate articles for Group B and Group C and Group D. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no need for separate group articles, all match results can be covered in main article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jolyon Jenkins

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

WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents me from returning this to draft unilaterally. I am unsure that would be my preferred action now it is in mainspace. Jenkins is presented as a good but WP:ROTM journalist doing his job. Many, most, of the references are his work, but they are not reviews of him nor his work, thus they provide no verification of any putative notability. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia and is not satisfied. As presented and referenced I cannot see a pass of WP:BIO. A WP:HEY outcome would be acceptable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating (and main) editor moved this back to draft. I have moved it back to mainspace since it is mid process, and suggested to them that they offer an opinion here to draftily. Should they do so, and assuming that no-one has suggested deletion in the interim, I will withdraw the nomination in favour of moving to draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, should that happen with no intervening counter opinion, I am content that this signifies my withdrawal, and any editor in good standing may note that and close the discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have move protected the article to discourage another attempt on their end. If someone feels consensus is reached sooner than 7 days, any admin may lift if I'm not online to do so. Star Mississippi 14:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially rewritten to clearly demonstrate the subject's notability through multiple independent sources. It now includes national press reviews from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and Radio Times, industry-recognized awards such as the One World Broadcast Trust Award and the Sony Radio Award, and evidence of significant contributions to public debate, including testimony before the House of Lords Select Committee on data protection. Given these factors, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for journalists and media figures Frobisher2021 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see this as an opinion that this be kept, and not draftified.

I am slightly saddened about this. Of the references that I can access, two only point to an award, which might confer notability. The others are simple evidence of Jenkins doing his job, which cannot verify notability. One is a programme listing, which shows that he has a programme, and another does not mention him. I have not changed my view, nor my willingness to accept a request to return this to draft as an outcome of this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations are intended to verify that Jenkins produced or presented the programmes mentioned. In such cases, a programme listing is a valid source, as it confirms authorship and broadcast history. If there is a specific citation where Jenkins is not mentioned, I would appreciate clarification so it can be corrected.

Regarding notability, multiple citations go beyond listings and are national press reviews from The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and Radio Times. The consistent critical acclaim over decades from respected critics (e.g., Gillian Reynolds provides strong evidence of notability, as it is not just passing praise, but exemplary recognition, going beyond “run of the mill”. If more evidence of this is required, it can be provided.

Additionally, Jenkins was Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a major political magazine. His work has been frequently cited in peer-reviewed academic research and journalism studies, including publications like the British Journalism Review, Index on Censorship, and the scholarly book Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis). These citations further demonstrate his impact on journalism and public discourse. A section on this could be added.

Regarding awards, while only two currently have citations, further research is likely to provide more. The fact that industry-recognized awards cannot so far be backed up by citation in itself is not a reason for deletion, especially given the additional press and academic recognition.

Finally, if the objection is based on access to citations, Wikipedia's verifiability policy explicitly allows print sources, even if they are not personally accessible to all editors. Many of these sources are accessible through newspaper archives (e.g., Newspapers.com, The British Library), and all are fully formatted with author, title, and date, allowing verification through standard research methods. Frobisher2021 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I feel this article, with some work, could be suitable for the mainspace. At this time, it is not ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkvtsh (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Hajla Pass

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

Another artivle riddles with soruces that only contain trivial metions.

No evidance of notabilty. Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Frankly reads like WP:Propaganda with the vague claim that dozens of Yugoslav soldiers were killed. Mztourist (talk) 09:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what one of the sources states. A more neutral approach would be to say that "the KLA claim that dozens were killed, however the exact number of casualties is unknown". Peja mapping (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Put unknown then. Unknown General17 (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 sources by radio kosova e lire all provide coverage on the events. The first 2 sources talks about the 1st half of the battle and the 3rd source talks about the 2nd half and it explains the fighting and isnt just a "passing mention", especially the source on Besnik Lajçi. Peja mapping (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, another non-notable, poorly-sourced, AI-generated-like article. Piccco (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom's rationale. --Griboski (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 21:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Rezalla (1997)

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

Most of the soruces do not seem to be able this battle, so much as one of the participants as such IT is nolt notable. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another non-notable page created by the same User. Mztourist (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into articles related to the Insurgency in Kosovo or the insurgency in Kosovo article itself. Peja mapping (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no viable merge target. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, does not use proper WP:RS. Piccco (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage in RS to warrant an article. --Griboski (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Surkish. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Surkis ambush

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

Really, of the sources that seem to discuss this battle oe is a Google groups site? Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Surkish Definitely seems like a thing for a history section of Surkish rather than a separate article. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 20:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into Surkish. Fails WP:GNG minor event with no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Surkish per reasons stated above. Peja mapping (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Manuel Aravena

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Chile. LibStar (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Pan American champion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also appears here, providing his birth place and name. He's also served as a coach. Bedivere (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt meet WP:GNG . need more SourseMonhiroe (talk) 10:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, Monhiroe. What is your deletion rationale? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Provided sources (More could be found with a simple Google search. Obviously expect Spanish-language sources, not English ones) are sufficient IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this one is a 1 line mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one may be a one line mention but expect significant offline coverage. This 1981 magazine for example makes extensive coverage of his triumph at the Panamerican games. Bedivere (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The curicopedia source is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#curicopedia.org. LibStar (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the 1981 magazine when I click it, just shows a very small scanned page. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curicópedia used to be a wiki but it isn't anymore, so the "open for editing" claim is not true. You should be able to search inside the magazine, try searching Manuel Aravena. Bedivere (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curicopedia is not reliable and should not be used for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Strike Curicopedia. We still have claims of notability here and there, and since his participation in some Pan American competition (not the Pan American games as Sam Kuru points out) dates back to the 1980s, there may be offline material since he is claimed to have won a medal or something. Bedivere (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Curicópedia is unsourced and user-generated and can't be used as a source here, but it can certainly be used to provide information to search on. Note that the Panamerican Games didn't happen in 1981; I think that's another large-scale event that he won. I think Bedivere is right - there's likely to be a decent amount of offline material on this. Unfortunately, my Spanish is also from the 1980s. I was able to find minor mentions in 1980 fairly quickly, and small mentions here, but that looks a little bloggy. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it's the Pan American Road Championships, see here.Sam Kuru (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient independenf WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. 201.226.200.75 (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC) — 201.226.200.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
thank God this is not a vote. Bedivere (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolve Marine

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Seems to be an abundance of coverage.

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

Please take a look at GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, especially WP:ORGIND which requires "independent content". It isn't about the volume of "coverage" it is about the quality of the content written by an unconnected third party. So an article that relies entirely on an "interview" for example fails ORGIND, it doesn't contain independent content. Mentions-in-passing when being awarded a contract, with the bulk of the article taken up with information about a shipwreck, fails NCORP. A Press Release is not independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well... Wikipedia grinds slowly but exceedingly fine. kencf0618 (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TNT, unsalvageable "article" "written" by an AI chatbot. 201.226.200.75 (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 01:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyriek Igwe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No discussion since previous relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete Non Notable martial artist, fails WP:MMA. The subject was not qualifying for an article and does not require one after. 201.226.200.75 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet SPORTSCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. No prejudice against restructuring the content in a different way, pursuant to further discussion. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dewi Evans

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

Dewi Evans may meet notability criteria, but only as the main prosecution expert witness in the Lucy Letby murder case of 2023, and so does not warrant an independent article. That case, and Dr. Evans’ role in it, is currently the source of a great deal of public focus in the United Kingdom. This article was only created six days ago, and is already becoming a focus for people with a given agenda (casting aspersions on Dr Evans’s evidence) which is not part of the mission of an Encyclopaedia. For the time being, Dr. Evans’ contribution to the Lucy Letby case can be encapsulated within the Lucy Letby article and with a redirect from the current article. The material in the current article is either far more detail than is warranted for a retired paediatrician, or cherry-picked controversies. Should Ms. Letby’s conviction be vacated as a result of Dr. Evans’s evidence, there may be grounds for an independent article about him. But I understand there is consensus and precedent from a certain case in 2007 is that tangential witnesses in criminal cases are not notable in and of themselves (I am sorry I do not know the specific case, user:Bearian drew it to my attention).

Seeing as Dr. Evans has not generated enough interest to warrant an article about his life before now, it seems to me that precedent applies here. ElectricRay (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree that being a star witness in one case doesn't make one notable, as an elected fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, he meets WP:NACADEMIC #3. If there are issues with balancing and WP:NEGATIVESPIN, the BLP article should be fixed not deleted. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still deciding. On one hand, yes, there's precedent for deleting this sort of article, where the main claim to fame is being a witness, but on the other hand, they might be independently notable. I'm no longer an admin. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One suggestion from user:Sirfurboy is that the Lucy Letby article be converted to the Lucy Letby case which might allow a section about Dr Evans insofar as it is relevant to that case.ElectricRay (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectricRay, while I do think there is a case to WP:SPLIT most of the material about his activities during the Lucy Letby case as too much of Dewi Evan's article is focused on the case per WP:PROPORTION. I oppose merging his biography into a potential article on the basis that Dewi Evans is independently notable.⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@⁂CountHacker my main concern is that this article is plainly being used by people to character assassinate a person who gave evidence in a criminal trial. As I said, he meets notability criteria on that score; beyond that, he is basically a retired doctor. He certainly does not warrant a 2,000 word+ article with 54 footnotes. Is there a way of protecting the article, or limiting it to the introductory 4 lines? i.e.,

“Dewi Richard Evans (born July 1949) is a retired British consultant paediatrician and professional expert witness. He is a fellow of both the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics & Child Health. During the 1980s-90s, he helped develop the maternity unit in Singleton Hospital, Swansea.
Beginning in 2022 he rose to prominence as lead expert witness for the prosecution in the Lucy Letby trial.”

This is really all it is justified in saying. ElectricRay (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs aren't the proper venue for dealing with a content dispute about a BLP and discussing how the article can be fixed. The subject is clearly notable and article can be fixed. It's best to go to the talk page and discuss with the editors involved in this article on how to fix the article after this AfD is closed. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As CountHacker has said, looks like he meets C3 of WP:NACADEMIC to me. Qflib (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC) I wish to withdraw this recommendation, having found that becoming a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians does not satisfy C3; see https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5885086/#:~:text=The%20RCP%20success%20is%20a,a%20globally%20inclusive%20medical%20college. Qflib (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib, I do believe that you may have read that passage out of context. "Exclusive" to "globally inclusive" isn't stating that fellowships of the Royal College of Physicians are non-selective, rather that fellowship is no longer solely reserved for Anglican males with an Oxbridge degree. Fellowship is still "highly selective" in the sense that you need to be elected to the RCP, see their website [4]. I do think there is a fair point from others that the RCP is a broader professional body but it is also a learned society as well, publishing its own academic journal.⁂CountHacker (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not simply that there’s a large number of fellows from around the world. He wasn’t elected as a fellow for his academic career, and so it’s difficult to construe using it to satisfy NPROF. Qflib (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I also agree that Evans meets C3 of WP:NACADEMIC. The article should be edited for quality and conformity to WP:BLP. Mellangoose (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the C3 criterium: is Evans an academic? Dr Evans seems to have published only two scientific papers, very many years ago. Both very short and with co-authors. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12098-009-0171-5, https://www.bmj.com/content/2/6183/171.short The medical Royal colleges do have many academics as members but are primarily, in my opinion, professional organisations. The organisations do carry out academic functions, among others, but probably most members don’t. Richard Gill (talk) 05:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Gill, I would say he 's contributed to more papers than you think. I've found a few more papers written by him, in addition to the two that you've found. [5], [6], [7],[8], and this BMJ article written solely by Evans [9]. A lot of the difficulties in finding his works seems to be that Evans is often cited by his initials, D R Evans, and the fact that most of his work pre-dates the digital age, being published in the 70s and 80s. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Brilliant work. Still, I don’t think this body of work is enough to call someone an “academic”. A good PhD student who publishes a handfull of papers while simultaneously being a teaching assistant and goes on to have a succesful business career has been academically formed but is not normally considered an academic, 40 years later. Richard Gill (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lucy Letby, and I think that page should be renamed to Lucy Letby case as the page is only really about the case and Letby has no notability beyond the case. That move cannot be decided here, but the merge can be. Reasons for merge are as follows:
1. the Royal College of Physicians is a respected professional body, but not an academic one as envisaged by WP:NACADEMIC. Evans has a lot of experience in clinical practice and such like, but is clearly not an academic. Those notability guidelines would be misapplied to him. What matters, and what always really matters are secondary sources from which a page can be written.
2. Evans is, in fact, covered in at least one excellent secondary source: Coffey & Moritz (2024) Unmasking Lucy Letby London: Seven Dials. The book paints him as more than an expert witness in that case. It suggests that his analysis directly led to the nature and extent of the case itself. It talks about him at length. There are plenty of other sources (many primary but some secondary) that cover him, but always in relation to the case. Although he has worked on previous cases, they don't appear to be covered anywhere. So we have sufficient sourcing to say he is notable, but it is notability entirely related to the Letby case, and this is apparent in the concerns about this page as it stands. These concerns cannot be adequately addressed. The vast bulk of secondary sourcing on Evans will be about his participation in the Letby case. Thus WP:PAGEDECIDE pertains. Should we allow this page to persist, noting concerns that it is an attack page, and concerns that it will always be very closely related to the Letby page? Or should we cover him in relation to the Letby case, which is exactly what the sources do too. At AfD we too often look only at GNG/ANYBIO, and forget PAGEDECIDE. I think the PAGEDECIDE case lies in favour of merger. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an author of many articles on Wikipedia, I'm against the proposal to delete this article. However, as a user of Wikipedia, I came here looking to find out about the background of Dewi Evans since his name has cropped up several times, not only regarding the Lucy Letby case. He is involved in other controversial cases in South Wales, including those of Sally Clark, Angela Cannings and Linda Lewis. He is definitely notable, some would say notorious given his past record. He is not an academic (his publication record is insignificant) and he is not a scientist (despite calling himself that), but he is a physician who, during the course of his career and subsequent retirement, has left a stream of controversial medical decisions that are highly questionable e.g. the Linda Lewis and "Bonnie" Lewis cases are horrendous - with Dewi Evans deeply involved. See Bonnie Lewis.This makes him and his background of interest in an article on Wikipedia that follows the usual criteria. Deleting such an article would be a dis-service to the public, who need to know about this man, his work, and his character. Egrabczewski (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In court, Dewi Evans said explicitly that he did not consider himself a scientist. Richard Gill (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bonnie Lewis link is an advocacy page about Letby, which does not demonstrate Evans had any notability outside of the Letby case, even though he was indeed criticised over that one. I am also unaware what he has to do with Sally Clark and Angela Cannings. Are there any sources that speak to those, and that are not linked so inextricably to the Letby case? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Sally Clark: he has signed letters to newspapers and to the BMJ (or a paediatric journal) calling for the rehabilitation of Roy Meadow, and another disgraced paediatrician. Richard Gill (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evans appears to meet the notability criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

NEWP

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. This was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show how the subject meets WP: GNG -- do not use buzzwords like "influential" and "significant" without giving sources to back up your claims. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Burroughs MCP. Could not find much in the way of secondary sources unlike ESPOL, and what does exist just describes it in the context of MCP and how it was used to write it. DigitalIceAge (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NEWP is the replacement for ESPOL. WP:GNG is just a weak reason for deleting really irrelevant articles. NEWP is not irrelevant. Ian.joyner (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who this Mr HyperAccelerated (MR HA) is, it seems they have nothing to there name on WP apart from this deletion notification. Thus MR HA is posting this under the guise of anonymity, which gives it less credence.

I thus suspect industry shenanigans. While the reason given (WP:GNG) is there is little findable online material apart from at Unisys (a full manual available), that is only a weak test, and certainly DOES NOT apply here.

Let's use this test: "On Wikipedia, the general inclusion threshold is whether the subject is notable enough for at least two people to have written something substantive (more than just a mention) about that subject that has been published in a reliable source."

Yes, NEWP has a reliable source at Unisys. Secondly this article has been worked on by multiple people for nearly 20 years. This article is also referenced from other WP articles, so is one of a related collection of articles. While NEWP is a specialist area, it is significant in the context of those other articles for which there are plenty of external material since the B5000 and descendants are very significant machines in this industry.

It may be that Mr HA has no familiarity with this subject so it might seem irrelevant to him, or that Mr HA has some industry axe to grind or works for some competitive concern. I find the whole 'flag for deletion' suggestion here nonsense in one way or another. Ian.joyner (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is (roughly) a crosspost of a discussion this user opened on the article's Talk page (see here). Unisys is the company that made this language, so their manuals can't be used to establish notability. I won't say too much about the WP: ADHOMs that attempt to attack my credibility, other than that if this user seriously believes that I have a conflict of interest, the proper venue to litigate that discussion is at WP: COIN, not here. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already said, questioning your credibility, where you have come from, or your motives to launch this attack on a perfectly legitimate article is not actually ad hominem.

As for crossposting, WP is not at all clear as to where to respond to this scurrilous deletion request that seems to come from nowhere.

I'm not a WP lawyer (as you seem to be), I just edit and make positive contributions, not a negative attempt to delete the work of others who have given their time to provide this legitimate information. Ian.joyner (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether there is sufficient sourcing to make an article about NEWP. This is not Wikilawyering; this is how AfDs work. If you’re here to air personal grievances or vendettas, I have no business with you. Thanks and goodbye. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that reply. It proves that you have come here to air your own personal grievances or vendettas. You are spinning on to me what you are indulging in. That is why I questioned the motives behind this move to delete a perfectly relevant article and sub article to other articles, saving them from being too long.

If anyone should have grievances towards Burroughs/Unisys, it should be me for the way I was treated by career-furthering management. But I put that history behind me, because it is good and RELEVANT technology, especially showing how structured programming can be used at all levels with no assembler.

I'm suggesting that Wikipedia have a very good look into the motives behind the suggestion to delete NEWP. Since I can't find any other activity from this nameless and anonymous person, that calls further into consideration the motives. Ian.joyner (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There seems to be absolutely no source that satisfy GNG—none that are Secondary-ly published by reliable sources, thus we need not even evaluate whether it only has trivial coverage. GNG is not a "weak test" at all. It is the standard for whether an article can be included, otherwise articles have a strong likelihood to be biased (due to only using WP:Primary sources, as we define the term) or false.
I'm surprised that Help:My article got nominated for deletion! doesn't mention the Secondary aspect yet, and I've now added a mention. In any case, one should take note of the notice on the top of that page stating it is not a policy or guideline—but merely a summary—and Wikipedia:Notability's status as a guideline. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aaron. Yes WP:GNG is a weak test. It is only a symptom to show possibly irrelevant articles. However, this test does not apply to NEWP. Let's rather apply the test of relevance, that this article has been worked on by several people, it is a sub article to other WP articles.

NEWP is the OS language used by a very significant vendor that has had profound effect on this industry showing that all system software can be written in structured languages.

NEWP in fact sets the standard for that. It seems that Rust has copied the idea of having unsafe regions. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a great mistake and do the industry and WP a disservice to delete this article, and maybe other articles that fail one test. Not everything of relevance will be referenced online. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "only a symptom" as it is a guideline that does not say it is a weak test, period. There is no test of relevance. These are not just "legal" terms or politics; these are collections of the wisdom and consensus of Wikipedia editors since 2001 on how to create quality and encyclopedic content. By refusing to read such pages, you would be going against the agreement of thousands of editors just like you—our core policy and tenet, WP:Consensus. Plus, the knowledge of this software is still up there in this company's excellent brochures; it's just that completely trusting a company's words on how amazing their product is would be a great disservice to encyclopedic reliability. Anyone can create a brochure and claim they verified it to be accurate to its subject, and it would take too much effort to manually verify every such claim. I will not be replying further if you don't address the notability of this article based on the GNG criteria. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“It is not "only a symptom" as it is a guideline that does not say it is a weak test, period.”

Don’t be so dogmatic with “period”. Notice in the table on sources suited, the third column for “No or few suitable sources cited” says “Likely not notable”. Likely means it is not an absolute.

There are other criteria for notable. As I have noted, NEWP is the evolution of ESPOL, and the significance is that this was the language used to write the first OS exclusively in high-level syntax. It is now notable as the only OS/language requiring absolutely NO assembler. It is also notable as the first major OS that was open source. Because of ESPOL/NEWP customers could read the MCP OS source and even submit their own extensions. One such was BATS, the Burroughs Automated Tape System from New Zealand.

Other systems have inherited from that. That in itself is historically significant.

Note that under GNG, it is also said “"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.”

The cited manuals are not advertising, press releases, autobiographies, but technical manuals. This explains the decisions behind NEWP.

“in this company's excellent brochures; it's just that completely trusting a company's words on how amazing their product is would be a great disservice to encyclopedic reliability.”

NEWP is not mentioned in brochures. They do NOT hype NEWP. Removing NEWP is absolutely a disservice to encyclopaedic reliability and completeness.

The lack of wide coverage is not an absolute measure of irrelevance.

NEWP is a technically significant language.

I find the attempt to remove the NEWP article, along with ESPOL, Elliot ALGOL, ALGOL W, are all frivolous or maybe more sinister attempts to obliterate very significant bits of history, for what motive, I can’t exactly say, but it certainly does not look good. Perhaps it is at the very least that someone wants to look like they have had influence over Wikipedia, but not contributing to it in a positive way.

Removing these articles will indeed reflect poorly on the ad hoc “anyone with an inane pseudonym can be a Wikipedia editor” procedures.

“There is no test of relevance.”

You should read more carefully. I did read that significant contributions by several people to an entry counts as relevance. This article has been on WP for 20 years with notable and careful edits. It is not an article that has been placed on Wikipedia for frivolous purposes of for pushing any particular barrows, which it seems are the spirit of the guidelines.

But it seems that the suggestion to delete this and similar articles are an attempt to push a barrow. Ian.joyner (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what most of these Wikipedia legal terms mean. All I know is I and others come here to make a positive contribution to WP, and I don't want to get caught up in these negative political arguments.

Frankly, this is becoming the 'enshittification' of WP where bully boys win out, just like on other social media.

The rules and tests of WP should be to combat that, not to be used as an excuse for it. Ian.joyner (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment I have p-blocked Ian.joyner from this badge for bludgeoning and disruption. Star Mississippi 03:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DarkwebSTREAMER

AfDs for this article:

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

A year on from the last AfD and this game has still not been released. No one can play it and consequently every review of the game fails on the independence criterion. This is a software WP:NPRODUCT and Wikipedia is advertising unreleased software. WP:SIRS pertains and early access reviews cannot be independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Products, and Australia. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is clearly passed. Notability does not hinge on whether a game has been released; because Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, but a recorder of facts, and unreleased games can still have things about them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of third party sourcing discussing it in detail already in the article. Meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:GNG have refernces and notable articles Monhiroe (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have some sympathy for the argument that early access reviews of a product can not be independent by definition, however I'd want to see that explicitly spelt out in WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 08:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yes. It is spelled out in WP:PRODUCTREV, which says:
Many reviews are not independent and are, in fact, a type of advertisement and product placement. Sponsored reviews include reviews where the reviewed product is provided free of charge to the author.
No reviewer paid to review this product, as they cannot. It was provided free of charge in every case. Despite 3 votes above claiming this meets GNG, this is a product and needs to meet WP:SIRS. No evidence has yet been given that any reviews meet SIRS. In particular, WP:ORGIND is not met. No one has played this game - all claims to notability are a type of advertisement. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy, thanks for that. I only read WP:NPRODUCT when I made my prior comment. TarnishedPath^talk 11:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per WP:PRODUCTREV, sponsored reviews where the author has been provided with the product free of charge are not independent, which rules our a lot of the sourcing when considering notability. What is left doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV of the product itself. This product might come out soon, at which time I would expect more reviews, which is why I suggest moving to draft. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I confirm that I think draftify is a good WP:ATD in this case. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi! I'm the lead developer of darkwebSTREAMER. I just wanted to clear up some confusion based on some comments I've read here - the game has been played by thousands of people at various public conventions and events across the world. You may be interested to know that Tribeca Festival chose the game as one of their six showcase games, where it showed in New York at Tribeca Festival and was award-nominated. We were also showcased, played and award-nominated at notable places like SXSW and PAX, among many others. We also have alpha playtests accessible to our Patreon members, who in exchange for a fee can play the game at any time. Most of the journalism articles about the game were written after journalists played it at publicly accessible events. We've certainly never paid a cent to anyone to write an article about us. Based on the wording of the WP:PRODUCTREV, I would suggest the intention is to avoid awarding "notability" based on compensated marketing campaigns, instead of organic coverage by journalists interested in a piece of media. A final personal note: as an independent creator I look at the game more as an experimental piece of media than a "product" solely created for commercial sale. I created it for fun and the initial intention was never to sell it, but it grew bigger than me :) Okay that's it - I wanted to ensure that you had correct information available to you. Thank you! :) 61.68.201.48 (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has several references about the game being played at gaming conventions and none of those contained WP:SIGCOV (I took those into consideration in my comments above). The only articles which I could tell had SIGCOV were where reviewers were been provided with early release copies of the product and hence not independent. If you're going to make arguments for notability then I would suggest providing specific evidence in favour of your arguments. TarnishedPath^talk 13:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, is a journalist playing a game at a public event considered being "provided with an early release copy"? Most articles written involve these journalists waiting in line like everyone else, as context. I can provide copies of articles I think meet the SIGCOV requirements but would need to know what metric you're judging by. 61.68.201.48 (talk) 13:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the whole of the WP:SIGCOV article, I see the full wording is located in the "Product Review" section and states:

Many reviews are not independent and are, in fact, a type of advertisement and product placement. Sponsored reviews include reviews where the reviewed product is provided free of charge to the author. Often, sponsored nature of a review is not disclosed and not immediately apparent.

As head of the studio, I can confirm that none of the articles provided are types of advertisements nor product placements, and the only media articles on the game have been initiated by the journalist or media organisation, sometimes in response to playing a public demo.

Given the lines quoted are located in the "product review" section of the WP:SIGCOV article, I'd also encourage people to consider whether most of the coverage falls within the scope of a "review", versus "coverage". Some of the cited articles are by journalists who haven't played the game but researched it, and thus they can't have "reviewed" it nor purport to. In addition, most of the articles are not framed as reviews but features. I would agree that articles referencing "games we played at this show" could be viewed as "reviews", but without journalists receiving compensation for those articles, I don't think they could be reviewed as product placements or advertisements as specified in WP:PRODUCTREV. 61.68.201.48 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For further consideration, the Independent Sources section (WP:ORGIND) of Notability (WP:ORG) states as follows:
A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it. Self-promotion, product placement, or any other form of paid media do not count towards qualifying for an encyclopedia article. Only unpaid sources count.
.

Given that cited articles have been published by journalists and media organisations not because they were compensated or requested to do so but because they independently considered the game notable enough to publish on it, I would suggest that this places them squarely in Independent sources that count toward notability rather than conflicting/disqualifying sources.

For the 3 journalists who were provided private builds of the game, I will document that they were provided builds that expired after use, so I can confirm no one was provided compensation in the form of "free product" either. 61.68.201.48 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is clearly met. Skyshiftertalk 13:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 21:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim J. Sullivan

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

There are no meaningful sources in the article, nor have I been able to find anything to support a claim of notability in a Google search. He wrote a book Battle On The Hudson, but I don't see anything showing that the book gained him notability as an author. He's also poorly linked within Wikipedia, and the only other place where he's listed at List of Duquesne University people, there is a rather weak source to an author profile at an article he wrote for the New York Post.

Basically, there's nothing here. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, News media, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Alansohn (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reviews or other sources apparent in Proquest. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found only one capsule review (in Sports Illustrated) so I don't see a pass of WP:NAUTHOR or any other guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Battle of Qafë Prush

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

THis was a minor skirmsih. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are ALOT of minor skirmish and this is more some sort of Attack on KLA fighters killing one of the notable generals and wounding two others Unknown General17 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the point, there are lots of minor skirmishes, in all wars. We do not generally have articles on them. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are alot small ambushes that are kept which didn't do anything in war Unknown General17 (talk) 12:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It being a minor skirmish isn't a reason in itself for deletion. A, few, other, examples. What matters is notability. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 12:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not seem to pass wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

5 sources. 4 of which look to be reprints. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If i add like 1-2 new sources will you remove the thing for deletion? Unknown General17 (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would all depends on on the quality of the sources and the coverage. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added 2 new sources, one Albanian and other is from Kosovo site on Serbian language Unknown General17 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both trivial mentions, about a person. Notability is not inherited. We need sources to establish THE BATTLE in and of itself is notable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources show the battle being a topic that is covered.. it is also notable because it is where KLA fighter Luan Haradinaj was killed. There are many articles about the war in same style that were created which are not maybe major but which are listed as KLA or Albanian victory like Anadrinë offensive, Surkis ambush. Battle of Rezalla (1997), Battle of Jezerc, Battle of Hajla Pass, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.55.28 (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anadrinë offensive and Battle of Jezerc started the "frontal-war" in their respective regions; Anadrinë offensive for the Paštrik and Anadrinë region while Battle of Jezerc for the Ferizaj and Neredimë region. Battle of Rezalla was the first large-scale battle of the entire Kosovo conflict so for "Kosovo War-standards" they are pretty notable. For Battle of Hajla Pass there is currently a discussion and Surkis ambush is minor and has also been nominated. Peja mapping (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss this article, not any others. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Peja mapping (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failsWP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it fails General notability then alright but I don't think there is reason for deletion Unknown General17 (talk) 07:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG; the only thing worth noting was Luan Haradinaj's death, and the events are already covered on his article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Department of Government Efficiency. There is no "Members" section. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gautier Cole Killian

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

not the subject substantial independent coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can't you simply redirect it back? RodRabelo7 (talk) 11:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a possible outcome of an AfD discussion, one that I would be fine with in this instance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Engineering, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Merge and Redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Members Nothing in the article implies any notability on its own that we don't already cover in the DOGE article. The AfD on three other DOGE workers has also concluded today to Merge, and I don't see anything justifying an article on this guy in direct comparison. Mystic Cornball (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City F.C. 0–4 Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

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

Routine sports fixture, no evidence of lasting notability. Both teams are having inconsistent seasons, so whilst result might be a surprise, there has been no ongoing coverage about the match. Man City were on a run of 4 consecutive league defeats, and 6 out of 8, so any individual defeat is not particularly notable. Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Spike 'em (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. It's also too soon to know if there will be sustained lasting coverage of this match which would make it notable. It's not the first time Tottenham have beaten Man City 4–0 either. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, of course it has sources. But so do the other 379 Premier League games that happen every season, and for that matter the other 1,656 fully professional English league games as well. You could probably write a well-sourced article on all 2,000+ of them - every year. However, we have very few articles on individual league games, and most of those are games where some sort of record was set, or they have an unusual and lasting amount of sourcing (i.e. Battle of the Buffet). This one meets none of those criteria. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no indication that this match is any more notable than most others. – Pee Jay 14:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not historical. Matchcruft. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources are purely WP:ROUTINE coverage. Wburrow (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill Premier League game with only routine coverage. Frank Anchor 17:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I posted about this on WT:Football and it looks like a snow delete already. Nothing wrong with discussing this on season pages. But we don't need to do individual match articles like this, wikipedia would be overwhelmed if we did. Govvy (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no more notable than other games. Brief summaries of the article could appear in the respective clubs' season articles. Valenciano (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Seasider53 (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not have an article about every football match played and the match does not have anything to do with how the histories of each club has changed with trending news unlike the Manchester City 3–2 QPR (2012) result or record breaking wins/highest scoring matches. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too soon to say this 90-minute league game is part of the history of either club, or English football heritage in general. Anything relevant can be taken to each team's season articles. The page even says this was the fifth of a six-game winless run, so it was hardly going against form. City's run of poor form reminds me that Chelsea had a dire 2015-16 season after winning the league, but I doubt anyone apart from fans of involved clubs can recall the teams who beat Chelsea that season. Unknown Temptation (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTBURO. CNC (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. Not notable and total WP:ROTM. RavenRTC (talk) 12:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON to see if this will have any lasting notable impact (and I am not sure that it will), but its just another WP:ROUTINE match in the middle of a season that neither club have a chance of winning the league in. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that we have an article titled Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C. Schestos (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there is @Schestos:, and there was a discussion about it which chose to keep it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. LarryL33k (Contribz) 00:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 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 of the event itself other than, "After touching down, the plane crashed with X casualties", with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. 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) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and safety recommendations. The requirement for sourcing here is difficult because this occurred in a very remote part of the world - deleting this would further WP:BIAS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that the article is currently adequately sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is based on policies or guidelines. There is no such policy that states that an event is solely notable if it was "A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and [resulted in] safety recommendations". WP:BIAS does not state that we should ignore notability guidelines simply because it happened in a country where coverage is limited. I've seen better articles than this get deleted and the mere fact that the article is well referenced does not make it all the more notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're applying our rules too strictly. All of the sources in the article are American, but this happened in Sudan and the Sudanese performed the investigation. Furthermore it is fairly obvious that a regularly scheduled passenger plane service which ended in fatalities is likely notable - heck, multiple American sources picked it up even though it occurred in rural Sudan. The only possible reason to delete at this time is that there isn't demonstrated lasting coverage in English-language sources... SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? You have yet to actually mention a policy or guideline to support keeping the article. An investigation was performed after a plane crash - That is routine. The news covered the accident without any further coverage - WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It's been more than a decade since the plane crashed and there clearly is zero continued coverage. If your only argument for keeping is the aforementioned, then clearly one could create hundreds of articles on non-notable passenger flights on the sole basis that they received coverage for less than a week and had a final report published. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I've cited policy - the article as written meets WP:GNG as it was a plane crash on a commercially scheduled flight which resulted in fatalities, which received international coverage. The only reason to delete this is if WP:NOT applies, and I don't think it does - the nature of the event and the location of the event means follow-up coverage is likely to be local and in a language other than English, and the nature of this specific crash means that deleting it would further implicit WP:BIAS by excluding plane crashes from parts of the world where finding coverage is difficult, even if the crash which would otherwise be notable. Your other argument is wrong as well - this is very different from a general aviation crash in the United States, so keeping this wouldn't open any floodgates. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not notability so the fact that a plane crashed, wherever in the world, is not proof of notability unless the sources demonstrate so. Your comment only precised "scheduled passenger flight" which basically applies to any type of aircraft that provides that service. Sudan is a country that speaks english and arabic, so that already makes it easier to search for sources, and the mere statement that there could be sources does not establish notability unless you actually give sources that provide significant and in-depth coverage after the initial aftermath of the plane crash instead of saying that "finding coverage is difficult". It doesn't matter whether or not a deletion would further implicit bias. So instead of citing WP:BIAS, which does not trump notability guidelines, please provide us with these notability-establishing source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already established notability with the sources in the article, we're just discussing WP:NOT. I disagree with you strongly here, and arguing further won't change anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with SportingFlyer. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG for me. C 679 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability based on existing sourcing, as spelled out by SportingFlyer in detail above. nf utvol (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no idea what everyone else here saw but the sourcing present is not adequate to pass WP:NEVENT, it is neither lasting nor in depth nor anything we look for. A remote part of the world does not preclude the non-existence of secondary sourcing. GNG is not passed because all sources are primary. There is not a single secondary source in this article! PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 February 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either Tarco Aviation or List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24. Both articles have information about this crash. All refs in this article are from the time of the accident (although the first, the Aviation Herald, was updated to include info from the final report). I have found no further coverage. This incident does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:EVENT, but a redirect may be a good WP:ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference 1 is a comprehensive, contextualising, reliable independent secondary source. References 2-4 establish worldwide interest. The expectation for sustained coverage is suitable for nebulous events, not really for a well defined isolated plane crash where by the release of the final report, everything that can be known is known. All commercial passenger plane crashes that result in deaths and destruction of the plane should be considered notable. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it be? Not every incident that kills people is notable, like every single act of mass murder is not notable. Not trying to be rude, but IMO that comes off like a slippery slope. If we can just assert that anything that doesn't meet the guidelines should be notable, then why are we here? PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Slippery slope” is a logical fallacy. If you allow slippery slope arguments to be used, every concern becomes insurmountable.

I submit that every commercial passenger plane crash that kills passengers is notable.

Further, for this deadly commercial passenger aircraft crash, the GNG is met. The GNG does not require sustained coverage.

We are here because this is a near-borderline case.

I don’t think planecrashes are well covered by WP:EVENT. They do not fit with most of what’s covered by WP:EVENT. Therefore, or the subsections of WP:EVENT should be taken as dubious to apply. One good reason is that the final report of a plane crash is often thoroughly complete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree. Why should it be? Accidents happen. It does not pass the GNG because these are all primary sources. That something is complete does not make it notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh - something like this is clearly primary, the sources in the article are news stories but they're all reporting what others have reported. SportingFlyer T·C 02:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are not all primary sources. Ref1 has combined formation from other sources and added contextualisation to the facts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how The Aviation Herald isn't a primary source. It just regurgitates information from primary sources without adding any analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis to it. Aviation accidents involving commercial airliners aren't inherently notable just because they happened. They are still subject to notability guidelines and this one is no exception. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It combines primary sources with contextualisation. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bit of contextualisation, however, the source doesn't contain any "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" that would make it a secondary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of accidents and incidents involving the Antonov An-24. While I'm mindful of WP:BIAS, I have to agree with Aviationwikiflight's assessment of the article as WP:EVENTCRIT. This accident, though unfortunate, does not seem to have enough enduring historical significance to warrant a standalone article.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sourcing in the article is comprehensive and has a worldwide scope. Meets the expectations of WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails NEVENT. While I'm a big AV Herald fan, it is still a blog that largely just repeats official, primary reports without providing any actual analysis or wider context, especially for final updates. It's not evidence of sustained coverage, which is still very lacking. I'll note that NEVENT is what we have to meet here for notability, not just GNG, as NEVENT includes protections against NOTNEWS. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a redirect target in mind? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources I've found in Arabic: [10] lists it as "prominent aviation accident"; this features a paragraph on the crash; this mentions the crash. There are many other mentions in Arabic, especially in Sudanese media, showing it was a crash of note, but it's difficult for me to search for since it's not a language I know and have to rely on machine translation. SportingFlyer T·C 02:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references provided by SportingFlyer, which pass WP:GNG and WP:LASTING, and establish notability as a standalone page. Frank Anchor 16:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources presented contain significant coverage of the event. This is just a timeline of aviation accidents in Sudan (no significant coverage); This is more of a discussion on Sudan's aviation profile following the [11] the 2012 Talodi Antonov An-26 crash and only features a small paragraph of this accident without providing significant coverage. Just like the first source, this is just a timeline of aviation accidents in Sudan (no significant coverage). None of these sources contribute to WP:GNG. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: Per WP:REOPEN, I have undone a second non-admin closure of this AfD by Insillaciv. As has become clear in the DRV discussion linked to above, this is a close and contentious AfD, which needs an experienced admin to close, and not a user with fewer than 1,000 edits. Please let an administrator close this AfD. Sandstein 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein sure! Thank you! Insillaciv (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Rodrigues (footballer, born 1996)

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

Playing 110 minutes in the highest Finnish league, 264 minutes in the second Finnish league and 0 minutes in the Portuguese second league is an extremely weak claim to notability. In other words the footballer thoroughly fails WP:SPORTCRIT, unless he can be shoehorned in with strong, significant independent coverage. Now, Rodrigues is mainly known for scoring goals on the fourth Finnish tier. This is an amateur league for mailmen and schoolteachers, and in my opinion, it follows that the coverage on his exploits in that league (Palloliitto, found in the Finnish Wikipedia) is insignificant in nature. The subject therefore fails WP:GNG as well. Coverage like this is paywalled, but looks short. But you be the judge. Geschichte (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject clearly fails both GNG and SNG, I cant seem to find any important source stating the subjects notability. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 10:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Money Concepts

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

Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Cited sources are either non-RS or don't mention the subject. Vgbyp (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Vgbyp (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be PROMO for the "Concepts"; I can only find blogs/trading websites that don't appear RS. The only source which Cite Hilighter has listed is #1 and marginal regardless. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional and fails WP:GNG per other comments and nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#Kuwait. ✗plicit 14:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Qahtani

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

The subject fails GNG and NSPORT for not having SIGCOV from IS and RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for verification. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 08:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Kuwait. Cassiopeia talk 08:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With not 1 but 32 international caps, and being a triple league and triple cup champion, he looks notable. An Arabic WP:BEFORE is needed. Geschichte (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#Kuwait as possible search term. Giant Snowman 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per GiantSnowman. If more sources appear, I'll change my vote, the player seems to have had a relevant career at local level. Svartner (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ilia Stambler

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

Highly promotional article whose references are almost all primary--the subject's resume, their publications, or the longevity websites they seem to be running. Two books, that's promising in terms of WP:PROF, but they are self-published and really not a in a good way: see this one. Instead of references or reviews, then, we have spam links, and maybe one independent reference--but this is pretty lousy, in a publication that doesn't inspire much confidence. In addition, the article was created by a now-blocked sock (blocked by Spicy but I can't tell if G5 applies. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF, and the books would only count towards WP:AUTHOR if they had multiple published reviews. I think the Wired article may be WP:SIGCOV counting towards WP:GNG but it's the only one and it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep his books and publications are quite notable. Thus pass WP:AUTHOR. 102.91.93.141 (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC) Duplicate vote from near-identical IP struck. Left the one below. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Though notability of the person is really under question, it is rather "yes" than "no". I added several references to the article. There are other short mentiones of the person in press in various languages. — Lady3mlnm (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus yet in my opinion, relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 17:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to very quickly drop into using profiles to support it, particularly on the new references. I would have expected to see a lot more in that first block of references, but quickly becomes very poor. I had a look for the books to see if they had a WP:NAUTHOR pass. The current refs are non-rs and there is not much there. I found one link for 'A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth Century' but is mostly blurb and not a real review so no multiple published reviews. The single Wired article insufficient for blp. When compared to other academics of a similar field, he is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 06:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16] are enough to establish notability. 102.91.92.159 (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first and third of those are plainly non-independent. The second is the Wired article mentioned by scope_creep above. The fourth does not contain significant coverage (it's one sentence, mostly not about Stambler). These sources do not help show GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I lean keep. Per Google Scholar [17] he has published multiple things with varying amounts of citations. He has a chapter in a book published by a scholarly press [18]. He's referenced in a book about Transhumanism as well [19] and cited in this Encyclopedia of Biopmedical Gerontology by Elsevier [20] and his work is briefly discussed in this book from the University of California press [21], also this news article [22]. To my understanding, Times of Israel was declared generally reliable here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_461#RfC:_Times_of_Israel, and this article by them describes Stambler and some of his work noting him at the time as "the director of Research and Development at Shmuel Harofe Geriatric Medical Center in Beer Yaakov"[23]. Per its own description, Shmuel Harofe is a government hospital affiliated with the Tel Aviv University Sackler Medical School. If the article is promotional, it should be re-written, but I don't think deletion is appropriate here. Emm90 (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just not seeing enough to meet NPROF or GNG here. Other than the Wired article, which has borderline coverage at most, the sources listed above are typical citations, non-independent, passing mentions, or quotes from him. JoelleJay (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that per WP:NACADEMIC being the Director of Research and Development at Shmuel Harofe Geriatric Medical Center would have fulfilled "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society", no? Given its association with the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, with Tel Aviv University being the largest University in Israel and all. Emm90 (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is neither an academic institution nor an academic society, and "director of R&D" is not the highest-level position... C6 also says director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university). JoelleJay (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C6 is for the CEO or equivalent officer of major non-university research institutions, say St. Jude Children's Research Hospital or the Brookings Institution, not for people who are department directors within a research center that is part of a larger university. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's no pass on WP:NACADEMIC; despite the citation to Google Scholar results, his h-index of 19 is at the low end of average for an academic of his experience, and as discussed above his position is not the sort that qualifies under C6. He appears to have self-published his books and I didn't find independent reviews of them, so there's no WP:NAUTHOR pass. The Wired article is the only WP:GNG-qualifying source I see, and we'd need more than that, so the subject fails that guideline too. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ozerk Ozan

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

Marked for notability concerns 2 years ago. A mere 3 google news hits. Fails WP:BIO. A lot of the article is on his personal views but I fail to see how this adds to notability. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and Norway. LibStar (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. 201.225.7.18 (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 01:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Treaty of Nice (1892)

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

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

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

References

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete ~~as a (possibly accidental) hoax.~~ Wayback did capture the the page for the game, and it's quite clear we aren't dealing with the real world here. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this could be speedied as the original author put up the deletion notice immediately after creating the article; it was recreated by someone clueless who didn't catch on that the author (who was blocked long ago for socking and before that multiple times for edit-warring) was trying to make a point. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for digging Mangoe, you can see the treaty here. Definitely confirmed to be fictional. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. Mccapra (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 07:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Nervous Fellas

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

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

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

Thanks for bringing the essay to my attention. Going by AfD history and the facts, I have to say that your suggestions did not take much hold, unfortunately. Let's hope for a better-than-never denouement. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is the only link that pops up [24], but it's blocked by the firewall here at the office. I'm not impressed with the rest of the sourcing, appears to be concert listings and the like. They have mentions of articles, but no links, I can't verify them. Was likely PROMO at one point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article would constitute an automatic free pass over WP:NMUSIC in the absence of solid sourcing for it, but the "sourcing" present in the article is failing to achieve solidity — most of it is unreliable and non-notability-building junk, and even the "extra" stuff contextlessly listed under the references section without being used to footnote anything largely ain't cutting it either: for instance, neither ProQuest nor Newspapers.com turn up any evidence whatsoever of either "The Vancouver Sun by Michael Groberman April 16, 1988" or "The Calgary Herald, Nitebeat September 13, 1988"; "The Winnipeg Sun January 20, 1989" is just a short blurb appended as a coda to an article whose primary subject was an unrelated Canadian musician who once played as a session musician on a Bob Marley album, not substantive coverage about the band; and almost everything else there is primary or unrecoverable.
"The Province by Tom Harrison Tuesday June 28, 1988", to be fair, did pan out with a genuine article about the band, but (a) it isn't verifying anything about them that would constitute an automatic pass of NMUSIC, and (b) even just getting them over WP:GNG at all would still require a lot more than just one piece of acceptable GNG-worthy coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gopikamma

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

Promotional fluff for actress Pooja Hegde started by blocked sock. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reliability of the sources should be discussed. If something here is reliable, a merge, or a redirect, to Pooja Hegde is a possiibility. I am neutral. Geschichte (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are YouTube videos of the song itself or ones that fail the reliability criteria of WP:ICTFSOURCES. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources 1,2,3,4 are YouTube video of the song and teaser. Source 5,6,7 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES, indiaglitz, 123Telugu. Sources 8 is YouTube video on the performance. Source 9 is TOI is routine news. Source 10 is unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES, filmibeat. Nothing notable on the page with no significant coverage from any reliable sources. Even the reception is from unreliable sources. Fails WP:NMUSIC. RangersRus (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and agreed with RangersRus. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 01:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4.5 mm

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree, unnecessary. Just use a hat note. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the disambiguation page is deleted, then the redirect pages should be deleted as well. "4.5mm" can refer to anything of that size. In photography, prime lenses are colloquially referred to by their focal lengths. For example "Use the 4.5mm." is an elision for "Use the 4.5mm lens." The same occurs in ballistics as well. For example "Use the 4.5mm." is an elision for "Use the 4.5mm caliber.". This is confusing and specific enough I think to warrant a disambiguation page since these are very different contexts (shooting a gun versus shooting with a camera lens). Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a part of Wikipedia, a disambiguation page has to guide the reader to actual uses of 4.5 mm in Wikipedia, not any thinkable use of the term. Your second suggestion below seems far-fetched. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Otherwise merge with a new disambiguation page for "5mm" to refer to anything between 4.5 mm and 5.4 mm in size. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete and also delete incoming redirect 4.5mm. The lens is not known solely as "4.5 mm". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Nicole Sharp, please strike Keep or Merge as you're only allowed one vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete slap a hatnote on .177 caliber and that's it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe even a hatnote is necessary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ildar Valeyev

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ice hockey. Joeykai (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Having only played two top-flight games, and with participation standards in NSPORTS deprecated, this would stand and fall on the GNG. With that, I could only find namedrops in routine match coverage. Ravenswing 07:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a seeming lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kompleks Karamunsing

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

The 2 sources are 1 line mentions. A search in google news found routine coverage like a fire or a covid case. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Malaysia. LibStar (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above by the nomination, all of the coverage has been routine: two women rescued from a fire, officials afraid that Covid may spread in a mall, a new store opened. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without encyclopedic relevance. 201.225.7.18 (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stoutsburg, Indiana

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Have an opinion, User:Uncle G, on what should happen with this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping that other people will have opinions, now that they know what the subject even is. I'm not sure how I would myself write about this. The savannah has a description in a Nature Conservancy publication that isn't quite hefty enough to stand alone, but per sources could be in a larger subject of nature conservancy in Indiana or some such; but conversely, taken alone I'd write about the railway station in an article on the railroad (or, better, what the cited source says the Three I's railroad was subsumed into) since that seems to be how every source discusses it and how the world knows the subject.
I haven't found a source connecting the two and I suspect that Baker's village is a fantasy that conflates the George W. Stout, merchant of Indianapolis who has a historic building there, with the George W. Stout cobbler that was a lifelong postmaster in Hamilton, neither of whom connect to Jasper.
Let's just say that I cannot prove that this article is not synthesizing a load of disconnected things that have roughly similar names, because what Baker asserts turns out to have no corroboration and a hefty indication from the history books's accounts of the two George W. Stouts that it isn't true.
Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're putting too much thought into this. Based on evidence already cited, this was a rail station inflated into a "village" so that someone could have a comprehensive book. Delete and while we're at it I think we should delete all statements (if not all articles) sourced to Baker, as he's clearly not reliable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Val Valentino

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Magic. Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed. 162 etc. (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Brazil, California, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject was highly notable in Brazil at the end of the 90s/beginning of the 2000s, and to this day has had some repercussions in the mainstream media (especially on Rede Globo). [25], [26], [27], [28]. Svartner (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles talk about his health problems (which are not encyclopedically notable) and his 90s TV show (which already has an article.) 162 etc. (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are several other things about him, like this article from 1999 [29], or about the return of his show on pay TV channels. [30], [31]. Maybe he hasn't been as successful outside of Brazil, but there's definitely WP:SIGCOV here. Svartner (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Opinion is divided between editors arguing to Keep and those anticipating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Breaking the Magician's Code: Magic's Biggest Secrets Finally Revealed. 201.225.7.238 (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Foreign relations of Estonia#Europe. Consensus was this did not warrant a standalone article; redirecting as suggested as an AtD. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Serbia relations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per lack of reliable sources. Yilloslime (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (restore) to Foreign relations of Estonia#Europe. The topic may be notable, yet the article lacks sufficient context to stand on its own. Until it offers some content not covered elsewhere, it does not meet NOTDIR guidelines: Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed. The article serves as a REDUNDANTFORK of other articles. gidonb (talk) 03:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 07:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian atrocities

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

Why the page should be deleted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content of article aside (which strikes me as politically motivated), isn't the title inherently non-neutral? I haven't seen any others structured like this...usually it's "[nation/group] + war crimes", "human rights of [group] in [place]", "[group] genocide in [place]", etc.. Atrocity is a value judgement, and putting Armenian in front of it makes it sound like this page will be about all atrocities committed by any Armenian regardless of context. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - totally revisionist and ahistorical propaganda. We are not a memory hole nor a soapbox. There is zero verification that this happened. This is just a way to blame the victim over 100 years after the facts. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 01:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Zhiruo

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Martial arts, and China. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber. Redirect as if sources exist they are in Chinese, which I cannot search in, and I assume the nom did not (I did check the zh wiki article and it does not appear to have any reception/analysis and just like ours, is a plot summary + a list of media this character appers in). As such, the article as written fails WP:GNG, and WP:THEREMAYBESOURCES is hardly a valid argument. All things considered, redirecting is the best outcome, unless someone can improve it now. After redirection, this can hibernate in the history until such a time someone is able to restore it, if sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did do a google book search in Chinese using Chinese characters [32] (I can't read Chinese either, though you can auto-translate the books titles and snippets using Chrome's page translation feature), and I did find some sources that were analyses of Jin Yong's novels that mentioned the character like [33] and [34], but the actual quotes that were shown as snippets looked like essentially plot summary to me. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[35] might count as sigcov, as the snippet quote shows a bit of analysis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Following sources found below, I change my vote to keep. If the article is not improved, I ask the closer to add {{sources exist}} to it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Zhou Zhiruo (周芷若) is a lead character in The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber, one of China's greatest Wuxia novels, prominently featured in several films and TV series and portrayed by many top actresses. The deceased top actress's tombstone is honored with a replica of her most famous character, Zhou Zhiruo; see [36]. Well, should we delete Pokémon just because it is fictional? The character holds greater prominence than Western fictional characters in South Asian regions.

Numerous literary works explore and research the subject, including 周芷若 or 金庸周芷若人物分析, and many scholarly articles analyzing the character can be found in the Chinese Scholar Database. Please conduct research and find sources in the Chinese language before proposing deletion. If you nominate minor characters, I can agree with you, but this is an AfD on a notable female lead.

Really? Wikipedia is not exclusively an English-language source center, and the absence of English sources is not a valid reason for deletion. If you want to make a problem about Chinese fictional characters, please reconsider focusing on minor ones.

Well, here are some significant scholarly articles about her below:

论周芷若的人物形象 ["On the Character Image of Zhou Zhiruo"] from Science and Fortune Magazine (a national second-level academic journal approved by the State Press and Publication Administration), 2018, Issue 19.
山隐与凌迟——金庸小说中人物周芷若形象分析 ["An Analysis of Zhou Zhiruo’s Character in Jin Yong’s Novels"], a research paper from Jiangsu Food Technology College by Zhang Jun.
论《倚天屠龙记》中的周芷若 ["On Zhou Zhiruo in The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber"] by Meng Qinglian from Zhengzhou Vocational Technology College.
芷若心事无人知 ["Zhiruo's Unspoken Thoughts"] by Yue Wei from Weifang Institute of Innovative Education Policy, Shandong.
《倚天屠龙记》中周芷若的善恶一体形象 ["The Duality of Good and Evil in Zhou Zhiruo’s Character in The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber"] by Li Gaiting and Lou Bo from Hebei University of Science and Technology.
浅谈《倚天屠龙记》的四位女性 [Discussion on the Four Female Characters in The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber"] by Han Haiyan from the School of Humanities and Media, Zunyi Normal University.

49.49.25.233 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing the whole Pokemon franchise to an individual character in a novel is an apples to oranges comparison. However I agree that my searching method wasn't thorough enough and I thank you for doing a more thorough search. I am now Neutral on deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the sigcov in academic sources listed by 49.49.25.233 (thank you!). While I wouldn't say that everything Jin Yong did was notable, as the greatest Chinese-language author of the last half century he probably comes darn close. Toadspike [Talk] 00:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources given above show notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by 49.49.25.233. Thank you for finding those sources! Zhou Zhiruo meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 04:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wakefield, Indiana

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

Geolocates to a house/farm at the intersecti0on, where there is nothing else. Searching turned up nothing, not even a county history. I presume it was just a 5th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only source that we have says that it was a post office. There's nothing else that I can find, except the 1930s histories saying in passing that Wakefield was the original name for Madison, Indiana. (Of course the stuff about a famous dog trainer is unverifiable.) There's no 1899 Wakefield anywhere in Indiana in the 1902 Lippincott's, for example. This is a subject with zero hope of expansion, with about two thirds of the present article being unverifiable or outright misleading. Uncle G (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See my comments for Stoutsburg, above. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. I would also add that, with all due respect to the article's creator, this locale is notable only at a local level. TH1980 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott ALGOL

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An internet search for 'Elliot Algol' turns up half a dozen or so references (excluding Wikipedia), including a working version on an Elliott 803 computer at The National Museum of Computing. Murray Langton (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, there's an entire 1966 book on it. There's an awful lot that one could write based upon that one as yet unused source alone, and huge scope for expansion here. Uncle G (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wooldridge, Roylance; Ractliffe, John Fuller (1966). An Introduction to ALGOL Programming. Applied mathematics (2nd ed.). London: English Universities Press.
- Do either of you have sources that show the subject meets WP: GNG? I don’t care how many WP: GOOGLEHITS the subject has, and the book seems to be about ALGOL generally, not this specific implementation, for which we already have an article. Saying that there’s an entire book about it is misleading at best and outrageously false at worst. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just gave you an entire 250 page book on the subject, which you clearly have not even bothered to read any part of, since even reading just its preface (let alone, say, the title of chapter 4) tells you that it is specifically about Elliott ALGOL, noting where it differs from ALGOL60. The authors explicitly say so, as do contemporary book reviews for that matter. It is bad form to lazily not even read anything of a proffered source and then call what people who have read the book say "outrageously false". You are the one making false statements based upon zero effort whatsoever. You just earned one of my rare speedy keeps. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve added a response below. Please remember that you need not respond to every comment you disagree with; WP: BLUDGEON is in force. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elliott Algol was the first commercial Algol compiler, which is arguably the forerunner of 'C' and all other block structured programming languages in use today. It's highly significant in computing history. ^[1] Much historical information like this is known to people who were there, but pre-dates the WWW so won't be found in a Google search. Elliott itself is a very significant company in the development of commercial computing.
Fjleonhardt (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So do you have sources to show that this subject meets WP: GNG or not? No idea why you’re calling it “highly significant” when the source you’ve used to back up your claim doesn’t mention Elliott ALGOL even once. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that Elliott Algol was the first commercial Algol compiler - I believe that the first commercial implementation of an ALGOL compiler was by Burroughs Corporation (please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_Large_Systems). ALGOL was in fact a widely used language in the USA, courtesy of the widespread use of Burroughs large, medium and small systems. (I've got no reason to doubt any of the rest of the statements in this article). 60.242.32.210 (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/ALGOL/

Delete: lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, isn't currently taught in multiple academic institutions, and lacks third-party instruction manuals for the Elliott ALGOL compiler. A comment on the sources: Lavington's book (arguably the best secondary source in this article) seems to talk about it in a broader context to the "golden years" of Elliott Brothers, and the parts of the chapter that talk about Elliott ALGOL directly are derived from Hoare's lecture. Lavington's book is therefore (in my opinion) not significant. The rest of the Google search results are just manuals written by Hoare, reports on the ALGOL 60 language or non-reliable sources. Fails WP:NSOFT. MiasmaEternal☎ 01:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the sources found by Adam Sampson, I'm now leaning towards Keep, since it now appears to meet WP:NSOFT. MiasmaEternal☎ 10:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not bothering to look at all at the aforecited 1966 book is poor form here, too. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Zero effort nomination by a lazy nominator who is not bothering to research things, nor even reading sources when proffered. Even the sources in the article at the time of nomination are not just mere mentions. The Lavington book covers Brian Randell on the subject, for example, as well as reporting what Hoare xyrself once said. Ractliffe returned to the subject in xyr later 1971 book on ALGOL. Brian A. Wichmann addressed the 4100 series compiler in xyr 1973 ALGOL book. Uncle G (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, generally when you throw a 250 page book at a volunteer and say “significant coverage is here, just trust me bro”, people will usually not go and read all 250 pages of the book. This truth is never a free pass to call someone “lazy” or their nomination “zero effort”. This is how life works.

Anyway, the phrase “Elliott ALGOL” only appears three times in the book you mentioned above. For Chapter 4, I don’t even believe it appears outside of the chapter title. The other book (the one already in the article) only mentions Elliott ALGOL a few times; it talks about the broader subject of ALGOL, it talks about the Elliott brothers, but it does not address the subject directly except for a sentence or two in passing.

Speedy keep doesn’t apply here: there is a coherent rationale. It just happens to be one that you disagree with. If this isn’t clear, I suggest reading WP: SK. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the contents of chapter 4 or even just 8.5.3 of the Springer book? SK3 requires you to state why the sourcing is not sufficient. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero effort nomination by a lazy nominator who is not bothering to research things, nor even reading sources when proffered."

100% agree with that assessment. It seems that HyperAccelerated is going around nominating things for deletion that he does not know about, so they must be irrelevant and only using a single criterion of WP:GNG.

These articles are relevant, at least to the history of the industry and influence on later development.

From what I have seen of HyperAccelerated (whoever he or she is), this is an act of vandalism against Wikipedia and those who have expended effort to write these articles.

It could be that HA wants to make a simplistic view of history based on their limited understanding. Ian.joyner (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Elliott 803.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Elliot 803 article is already long enough. Besides Elliot ALGOL was defined and developed beyond the 803. It was also an influential language beyond that machine. Ian.joyner (talk) 06:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources below by Adam Sampson.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was an widely-used early implementation of Algol, especially in the UK and Commonwealth, so it's discussed explicitly in contemporary books about the language. Elementary Programming and Algol (Nicol, 1965) has about 20 descriptions of Elliott-specific features throughout the book (which might be useful as a source for expanding the article). Basic Algol (Broderick and Barker, 1967) is written for the Elliott 903 version, and similarly highlights Elliott-specific features and limitations. Computers in Architectural Design (Campion, 1968) has a chapter about Elliott Algol with quite a bit of detail about how you compile programs and provide data for them in practice (again, maybe a useful source). ALGOL 60 compilation and assessment (Wichmann, 1973) has critical comments about limitations of Elliott Algol in several sections. Collected Algorithms from CACM (covering 1960-1963) gives evidence of how widely used it was, and several of the writeups describe Elliott features or problems explicitly. That's all from the first page of results on archive.org, so I expect a hunt in a university library would find more along the same lines. Adam Sampson (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I strongly doubt the nominator's abilities to read the cited books in the five minutes after nominating ALGOL X (though I agree that ALGOL X should be removed). Aaron Liu (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources dug up by Adam Sampson, Uncle G et al. Reading the author blurbs for each of those books, they all seem independent from Elliott. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Wonder Woman#Invisible Plane. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible Plane

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

A far cry from Quinjet or Blackbird; anyway, just a minor fictional element of the DC universe, pure plot summary, and list of appearances. Fails WP:GNG. Again, no idea where this could redirect, but I'd support a redirect over hard deletion if anyone has any suggestion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wonder Woman#Invisible Plane. I did a search and found a good plot summary hit from Nerdist but every other hit has been trivial mentions or Valnet. There's a perfectly valid section to contain this info, as even with Nerdist, which is all plot summary, there isn't really enough to build a whole article on with this, so a redirect should suffice. If anyone wants to merge anything else, I am unopposed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Pokelego999. The obvious choice here. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 01:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Opera web browser

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

Weird subartricle with no other similar article for any piece of software (there are only three other Features of... articles on Wikipedia, all plot summaries of comics, also discussed at AfD right now). This is effectively a weird prose WP:CFORK of the main Opera (web browser) article, -history and such. Maybe something here could be merged to the main article, otherwise per WP:ATD-R this could be redirected there, if folks prefer to keep it for its history. Fails WP:GNG otherwise, plus - well, pointless fork. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Opera (web browser) or delete: pointless fork, especially when you consider that at best, 2 of these features are actually notable. all others have been staples of browsers to the point a large part of the article is WP:BLUE^{(i'm aware this isn't what wp:blue is meant for as an essay. you get my point)}. themoon@talk:~$ 08:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (don't merge): This article is very WP:PROMO-ish and loaded with plainly non-notable trivia. Many sections are unsourced, and most of the sources that are cited are either non-independent (Opera website/forums) or unreliable UGC and/or promotional. See also WP:NOTGUIDE...merging with the Opera article would add 34kb of cruft to a 62 kb article. We simply don't need a listing of every single feature of a web browser in an encyclopedia, any more than we need a listing of every single feature of a model of car, particularly when those features are quite standard (option of leather or velour upholstery! Seat warmers in LX and EX trim levels! Delco sparkplugs!). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
overall I agree, but there are 1 or 2 notable features that would make sense to merge into the main article like being the first to include webVR support and mouse gestures. i'm fine with delete as well, it's not a huge loss, and the main article can still be edited to include them later. ^{themoon@talk:~$} 12:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A purely WP:PROMO content fork of the Opera (web browser) article. No reason to merge or redirect. If any features are notable, they can be added to the main article on their own merit without going through the merge process. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like this became a fork in 2006 and had its own life since then. – The Grid (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Feature lists for any software are inappropriate as a standalone article, no matter how notable the software itself is. At best, it's a pointless fork, at worst, it's unsourced advertising. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unnecessary fork Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to list features all web browsers have. Anything about its development is at History of the Opera web browser. Dream Focus 14:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 01:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

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

Same problems as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of Spider-Man media - this is just a plot summary of that universe in a list form. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST (too broad - we don't allow pure plot summaries of fictional universes in prose, and trying to "cheat" by listifying them is not cute). PS. Also, on the off chance this is kept, this would need renaming to the list of something format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Echoing arguments from prior AfDs of the Marvel Universe features list, this is not just plot summaries, but descriptive information of different elements from this franchise (which is notable) and some of their real-world attributes, like how some objects were made. This list was not conceived to avert deleting redirects as you have insinuated, so I would encourage you to WP:Assume good faith in this list's existence; no one is trying to "cheat" or WP:Game the system here. If you think this list needs improvement, then that is something to discuss at the list's talk page, not at AfD, because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There have already been discussions at the talk about potential ways to improve it, so I encourage you to collaborate there first before bringing up another AfD. Also, a rename or change in scope is not warranted nor what AfD is to be used for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In parallel to my opinion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd nomination), I believe this list does fulfill WP:NLIST, being the complementary list to the notable Marvel Cinematic Universe. It does fulfill two common functions of lists: navigation for the blue-linked entries, and collection of information on features which are not notable by themselves as in WP:ATD-M. For the latter type of entries, this list needs more commentary based on secondary sources and possibly trimming, but these are matter of normal editing and therefore do not warrant deletion as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Also see e.g. the entry on Dora Milaje uniform for a positive example of a brief entry that contains plot-summary and real-world information based on secondary sources. So this is already now not pure plot-summary, and noone is trying to "cheat" here. I suggest to those most bothered by the current state to WP:JUSTFIXIT. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is sprawling enough to produce articles like Infinity Stones or The Blip, so that a "features" list makes sense here even though that may not be the case for other fictional universes (also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). This is also the corresponding list to Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe features in accordance with WP:CLN. With regard to the name, I don't really see a need to change this to List of features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the balance between being concise and precise, but have not strong opinion on this. Daranios (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of noteworthy fictional elements from across the MCU that can be included on Wikipedia with appropriate sourcing and real-world discussion, and it makes sense to have a central location for the ones that are not noteworthy enough for their own articles. If there are concerns about the way this is being done, i.e. too much focus on plot details over real-world discussion or concerns that the list is violating WP:ISNOT, then that should be discussed at the article's talk page. Those are not reason enough to delete the whole thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that a good alternative would be to include reception and creator/creative discussions of these locations, objects, and events in the article. It doesn't have to go into super depth, but something like offhand mentions of why someone went a certain way with a given object or event could be good. This could be particularly useful for items or locations that don't have articles but have received some level of criticism/discussion in reliable sources. I'm not particularly interested in doing this myself, but wanted to throw this out there as a possibility. For example, this source discusses the Witches' Road from Agatha All Along. That location doesn't have an article (and probably doesn't need one) so this could be a good place to put that location specific content other than the main page for the series (particularly if focusing specifically on the road could put undue weight in the series article). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that if one looked, they could find coverage of these locations, events, and items in academic/scholarly sources as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My sentiments exactly. I was just about to add that to my !vote above. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago, when WP:FANCRUFT concerns had been raised with this article and others, I painstakingly went through each entry on the list and added in well-sourced real-world information on its background, development, reception, etc. I never finished, not only because it was time-consuming but also because it was pretty much a one-man job, and nowadays, I no longer have as much time to edit Wikipedia as I used to. Back in the day, we had several editors maintaining these lists, but our numbers have gradually dwindled (probably has to do with the MCU losing swaths of its fanbase due to its declining quality in recent years, but I digress). The point is, these sources are out there; they just need to be found and added to the article — WP:NEXIST. For starters, we've got plenty of information on our existing film/TV articles that can easily be copied over. As others have noted, however, this is not the appropriate venue to discuss these changes, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly notable to the extent that nomination for deletion is ill-advised. BD2412 T 01:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I agree this list is kind of shit. It has no defined inclusion criteria, a large number of redirects, and an uncertain degree of notability, but this is more of a page content issue right now. I'd advise some form of discussion for what content should be removed from the page. Perhaps remove one-off locations, items associated with particular characters, etc, and move them to more relevant articles or article subsections. Like, does the antiques store from one Captain America film need to be mentioned? Do Kilmonger's scars need to be listed here? Regardless, I'd say this list needs to be ironed out before a proper consensus on its content can really be determined. AfD just isn't the right venue for this kind of discussion. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator, per what everyone else has said above (it's snowing...). This list does satisfy WP:NLIST, and it does not solely consist of plot summaries as the nominator suggested. Also oppose a move to a "List of..." format, which is beyond the scope of this AfD anyway, for consistency with related MCU lists. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:CSC point 2. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much as it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as others have noted this clearly meets WP:NLIST. Like many other articles here, there is room for improvement, but deletion isn't warranted. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD just keeps getting dumber. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snow close as Keep: AFDISNOTCLEANUP arguments remain strong; an article re-write seems to be in order. Barnt Toust 01:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently a redundant and arbitrary fork of Marvel Cinematic Universe. Basically per my comment in WP:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (2nd nomination). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By definition, it cannot be a fork as virtually none of the list entries are mentioned on the Marvel Cinematic Universe article. Do a Ctrl/Cmd+F search. The main MCU article doesn't include a single sentence of plot summary or other in-universe information, so there is no place on that article to discuss the contents of this list save for a link in the infobox. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a problem of the main MCU article, which is solvable by a merger of some content from here to there. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would overload that article, which is already excessively long in its own right, to be even longer with far too many details, and is not the right solution here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. A clear consensus to Keep this article. Improvements are welcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Features of the Marvel Universe

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a place where a bunch of non-notable Marvel Universe topics "went to die" :/ Effectively a gigantic list of stuff (places, organizations, objects, and, uh, cosmic forces...), haphazardly collected and organized. There is no need for this effectively list of all in-universe concepts related to Marvel Universe to exist, it's pure WP:FANCRUFT, failing WP:GNG and WP:NLIST (too broad, pointless). This could be at best WP:ATD-Redirected to Marvel Universe, on the off-chance something here would be useful to merge there (but it's just a plot summary of niche concepts, so I doubt its needed). PS. Note we only have four "Features of" articles on Wikipedia. Those include: Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (sigh), Features of Spider-Man media and a bit different but still likely needing to go, Features of the Opera web browser; expect to see them all AfD shortly...). PPS. AFDs started. Also, on the off chance this is kept, this would need renaming to the list of something format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Nothing has changed since the prior two AfDs. This is just WP:Beating a dead horse and kind of reads like you just don't like it. There is no better place to compile all of these features, though it can definitely be improved upon and consolidated, but that is not what AfD is to be used for, as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I would suggest taking your suggestions to the list's talk page first before restarting yet another AfD. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daranios' !vote at the last AfD: This is a WP:CSC #2 spinout of aspects of an unquestionably notable milieu. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, this is the landing space for a huge number of redirects. Look at what links here for this page. Well over 500 incoming links including double-redirection. If there's not a criteria for "this was a merge target for other articles" then there should be; deleting this would effectively blow away ridiculous amounts of editor's work. Does anyone have a tool to calculate the maximum text size of previous revisions of incoming links? Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Putting crappy content in one place then blowing it up is hardly uncommon. And if some folks want to waste their time writing and then moving around unsalvageable (unencyclopedic) stuff, well, it's a (reasonably) free (wiki) world... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's deceptive, inappropriate, and your attitude is unbecomingly disrespectful to the people who build Wikipedia. Do better, and stop kicking sandcastles over just because you're an academic. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is an acceptable conclusion at times, there is clear consensus against this rationale being the sole solution to the problems of this list. There are other avenues to explore before blowing content up, and work to improve such content ought to be done before going all the way with yet another deletion proposal. I would like to see concerns raised at the list's talk regarding the current problems there and proposals on how to adequately address them without diluting focus on the content or removing it entirely. One editor's apparent disliking of a select list type existing should not be unilaterally imposed on all other editors and the content of all the similar lists. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per WP:CFORK. Marvel Cinematic Universe already exists. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR. Don’t just dump random details into a page and call it a Wikipedia article. 104.129.158.228 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not a content fork of the MCU, because this article is not about the MCU at all. Your argument would have been more accurate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe instead. BOZ (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My opinion has not changed as compared to last year: I believe this list does fulfill WP:NLIST, being the complementary list to the notable Marvel Universe. It does fulfill two common functions of lists: navigation for the blue-linked entries, and collection of information on features which are not notable by themselves as in WP:ATD-M. For the latter type of entries, this list needs more commentary based on secondary sources and likely trimming, but these are matter of normal editing and therefore do not warrant deletion as WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. So I suggest to those most bothered by the current state to WP:JUSTFIXIT. Marvel is sprawling enough to produce articles like Adamantium or S.H.I.E.L.D., so that a "features" list makes sense here even though that may not be the case for other fictional universes (also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). This is also the corresponding list to the fictional subcategories of Category:Marvel Comics (minus the characters) in accordance with WP:CLN. With regard to changing the name, I don't really see a need to change this to List of features of the Marvel Universe in the balance between being concise and precise, but have not strong opinion on this. Daranios (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above from Trailblazer101, Jclemens and Daranios and the outcomes of the previous AFDs. BOZ (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when it's obvious the nominator does not like articles with the naming "Features of..." and even then, that can be dealt with on each independent talk page. This is just bad form. – The Grid (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Trailblazer101:, @Jclemens:, @Daranios:, and @BOZ:. While the list appears to be too long and most of the redirects like Hammer Industries and Hidden races come to this page, some of the stuff should be split into separate pages like I once did when it came to the planets in Marvel Comics and how someone once started the List of DC Universe locations to list all the known locations there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rtkat3 We do need a list of Marvel Universe locations; I agree with this. I just don't think we need an indiscriminate list for all stuff from a given fictional universe. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to help start the List of Marvel Universe locations page sometime after this discussion is closed, go right ahead. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was never meant to be a list of all stuff from this fictional universe, and I think assuming this is a misconstruction. This is currently only vaguely spelled out by the lede saying "noteworthy concepts", but it's also kind of common sense. Just compare the number of items we have on our list to the roughly 100.000 (!) articles on "features" (as opposed to characters and comics) which Marvel Database has. If subjective judgement of what should be included is considered insufficient, dicussing and formulating a selection critereon is again part of normal editing and therefore its lack is no grounds for deletion. "Has this feature been noted by secondary sources" might be a critereon that could work for the non-blue-linked items. If this were to be newly implemented, however, I believe checking for sources first, and deleting if this fails afterwards should be the way to go, not the other way round. Daranios (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There comes a point where the continued renomination of content that has overwhelmingly been kept in past discussions becomes disruptive, and it becomes time to escalate this disruption to WP:ANI. BD2412 T 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, I'd endorse opening up an ANI thread over this editor if more of their disruption occurs. Barnt Toust 01:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust Threaten me a bit more and WP:BOOMERANG will be in play. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, let's be civil here. No one is threatening anyone. Piotrus, as an editor on here for 20 years, you should know how to conduct yourself in these discussions. A recurring pattern of abusing AfD procedures to satisfy your own opinion and unilaterally enforce it upon the community because you don't like something could warrant intervention if it persists. That is all. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As painful as it is for me to say. This article needs a substantial overhaul using top of the line sourcing and to be less in-universe. This list has many problems, but an AfD is an ill-advised venue for discussing these issues, as many of these topics contain substantial page histories and act as a large number of redirect targets. I am unopposed to a potential talk page discussion discussing what steps should be taken with making the list less messy, whether it should be split, etc, but an AfD would be ill-advised for dealing with the issues regarding this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much as it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as with most articles, there is room for improvement, but deletion is not warrated. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close as Keep: As Trailblazer101 said, you really need to drop the stick, Piotrus. Your actions scream AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and the shtick happening everywhere all at once is something that needs to stop. Barnt Toust 01:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure redundant fancruft, per my comment at the previous AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Fantastic Four (comic book). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasticar

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

Far cry from recognition or popculture significance of a Batmobile. Reception is a compilation of listicles and nothing but. All else is plot summary and a list of appearances. Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE fails to find anything useful. Per WP:ATD-R, can be soft deleted by redirecting to Fantastic Four (comic book) or such. Not sure if the reception is due to merging there, however... (there is also Features of the Marvel Universe#Vehicles but that article has major issues of its own...) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Transportation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fantastic Four (comic book) unless more sources can be found. BOZ (talk) 02:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the following in a different AfD, if this might be helpful:

"I think the best solution might be to Listify Category:DC Comics vehicles (and Category:Marvel Comics vehicles). If you look at AfD right now, several vehicles are up for discussion, and creation of List of DC Comics vehicles and List of Marvel Comics vehicles would resolve most of them, I think." - jc37 22:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Campbell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Susan M. Campbell (2nd nomination)

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

General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: no significant coverages and faiis WP:GNG.~~ Anktjha (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. A search brings up no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the sources cited in the article are closely related to the subject. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added several reviews of her books to the article, including in academic journals. I think there's a good chance she meets WP:AUTHOR. pburka (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep argument here which makes Soft Deletion inappropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The four sources added by pburka show just enough coverage in reliable, secondary sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is true that there are some book reviews, but I don't find that be sufficient to support an article about an author. There is one rather gossipy review in the SF Examiner; a single paragraph in Publishers' Weekly; a single page in Library journal. The Key West Journal and Communities also provide gossipy reviews, and neither is what I would consider to be a major publication of book reviews. Most of what is in the article about the person is from a non-independent source. Lamona (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Counting pburka's comment as a call for retention, I still don't see consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting directly since I haven't looked for sources myself, but if what we have in the article is all we've got, I'd say this isn't a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG dictates widespread coverage in independent sources. Doing a cursory search of the sources leads to Lamona's conclusion. There are references, but, for the most part, they are minor and few enough as to not satisfy the widespread coverage usually required. One single paragraph and one single page isn't enough to satisfy notability. GuardianH 03:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass WP:AUTHOR. The third guideline says that the author must have "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" and said work has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. Having reviews alone is not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 05:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man Bites Dog (company)

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

Fails WP:CORP. 5 of the 6 sources merely confirm winning non-notable awards. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Advertising, and England. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While noting the comments which were made around the Speedy nomination in 2019 about the industry awards (and also considering the EY Women Entrepreneur award to the firm's founder [37]), I don't see these as exceeding WP:CORPTRIV. Clearly a firm going about its business, but lacking evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. A page move may now be executed if desired. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eason Chan's FEAR and DREAMS World Tour

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

Article about a concert tour, not properly referenced as passing WP:NTOUR. As always, concert tours are not automatically entitled to their own Wikipedia articles just because they happened -- in the exact words of NTOUR, what is required is that the sources "show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms", while "sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability."
But as usual for bad articles about concert tours, this is just "tour happened, so here are the set list and the venues, the end", with absolutely none of the content about any noteworthy cultural, creative or social context that NTOUR requires, and it's "referenced" entirely to a single Instagram post rather than any GNG-worthy reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Hong Kong. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I doubt whether a BEFORE was actually conducted prior to this nomination, as the corresponding article on zhwiki [zh] already has 19 sources, all except the first and last of which are news articles from reputable media like Ming Pao[38], Hong Kong Economic Times[39], HK01[40], Oriental Daily News[41], Sing Tao Daily[42], and Ta Kung Pao[43], indicating that there are plenty of accessible sources available. From a quick Google search, I found many sources not only from Hong Kong, but also from Taiwan[44][45][46], China[47][48][49] Singapore[50][51][52], Malaysia[53][54][55], and Thailand[56]. There are also concert reviews, such as from The Straits Times[57] and HK01[58]. I agree with the nom that the current article is in poor shape, containing no sources aside from an Instagram post and consisting solely of a rundown and tour dates. However, AFD is not cleanup. The nom's concerns should be addressed by adding a {{more citations needed}} template instead of directly sending it to AFD. (especially considering that the article was created yesterday by a relatively new editor, there is a greater chance that the page creator is unfamiliar with Wikipedia's citation policies rather than the subject being non-notable.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not appreciating the attack here against Bearcat (who is one of our most prolific AfD nominators and can do BEFORE in their sleep, literally), and there's just one source in this article, followed by a no context list of venues and an untranslated track list. This is a very, very poor article titled completely wrong and promotional, and Eason Chan#Tours is also very poorly written. At the very minimum we need a proper translation of the song list and many more sources. I also don't think this is the article creator's first rodeo as they know at the very least how to create bulleted lists and grids, so the 'first article give them a chance' argument doesn't hold water for me. Nate • (chatter) 18:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I appreciate Bearcat's hard work at AFD as well, and I certainly did not intend to attack him. However, I think it is quite obvious that a BEFORE is indeed missing prior to this discussion, especially considering there are literally 17 sources sitting in the Chinese version of the article. A quick search I did also revealed numerous sources in both Chinese and English, and I have only listed a couple of the strongest ones (like concert reviews and foreign media coverage) above, which is already more than enough for a GNG pass. Nate, deletion is not cleanup, and AFD has nothing to do with incorrect title format and poor article quality. We are discussing notability here, and sources not yet included in an article should also be considered. Please review the sources I provided here or on zhwiki before you !vote delete, and it would be even better if you could also do a cursory search, given the absence of a BEFORE in this discussion (especially since I literally found several dozen of them during my search). —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is my fault that the initial article was not well presented. I've been enhancing the article's quality and adding more sources and citations to demonstrate that the FEAR and DREAMS World Tour deserves its own article. Woodikiw (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I reverted the move that was done during this AfD. Please do not move the page while the AfD is open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I object to the use of "reputable media" for some of the outlets listed above, but I suppose on this subject it's not an issue. There is plenty of sigcov here. A quick WP:THREE for English-speakers would be the CNA [59] and two Straits Times [60][61] pieces listed by Prince of Erebor. Toadspike [Talk] 23:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Prince of Erebor and Toadspike. There is sufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Concert tours, which says:
Concert tours are probably notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage might show notability in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms. Sources that merely establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
Cunard (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 06:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Asare Nyarko

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

No evidence of ntability for this individual. No independednt sources except the fact of his winning a young entrepreneurs award, which is not in itself notable. Searches show a wealth of social media posts and mentions , but nothing that confirms any notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Finance, and Ghana. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyview

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

Reviewed all sources and what I found are press releases, primary sources and passing mentions of the company. As of the time of nomination, sources number one to 8 are mostly press releases, and from number 9 to 19 are mostly primary sources. The few ones that look reliable are not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, and India. Mekomo (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are full of PR and sponsored articles WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Fails GNG and NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 08:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While the article doesn't have good references, the company definitely satisfies WP:CORP. There are a lot more recent articles about the company like [62], [63] and [64]. This company is one of a handful of companies to achieve Unicorn status in India in 2024, and, as a result, has definitely received significant coverage in reputed independent newspapers. It has recently acquired another company, which has led to further coverage on it. It has articles specifically written about it from reputed agencies, even before its Unicorn status, which satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. These include The Hindu, CNBC, Economic Times, and Money Control. There are also articles talking about the company on Indian Express, Inc42, Zee Business, Deccan Chronicle, and others; and, this company has one of India's most popular celebrity actors as a brand ambassador. Shashwat986 → talk 08:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I reviewed all the sources and also found that many links are PR-type links, as pointed out by Mekomo. But it looks like this company recently published a lot of news in notable sources, which are reliable and sufficient to meet the WP:NBASIC and WP:ORGIND criteria as mentioned by Shashwat986. The most recent coverage includes its transition to Unicorn status in 2024, FY24 revenue, and the acquisition of the fintech startup Jify, all reported by reputable independent newschannels. Medhagoswami55 → talk 15:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that while I am associated with Moneyview, these edits are made in a personal capacity based on my knowledge of the company. They are not influenced by my role at Moneyview. I am committed to maintaining transparency and upholding the spirit of Wikipedia. Medhagoswami55 (talk) 09:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable company using PR sources to get their article here. Many of the listed sources are copycat of one another. Patre23 (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to include sources found by Shashwat986. There's enough WP:SIGCOV there to satisfy WP:CORP and WP:ORGIND.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The sources don’t meet notability guidelines, but recent coverage does. I’ll make a few changes when I get time. NARESHPERRY → talk 23:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some canvassing going on here. Additional views from editors more familiar with our sourcing guidelines would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: [65], [66], [67] These are self published and not from reliable resources. The remaining consist of Press Releases and announcements. Bakhtar40 (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:ATD. Despite the fact that none of the references meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability, there appears to be at least one editor that wants to work further on the article and hopefully that means the editor will locate at least two references that meet both NCORP and ORGIND and not just regurgitated PR or content that relies entirely on company-generated stuff. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 00:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Savino

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

Subject does not meet ANYBIO as far as I can tell. From a music standpoint, subject's songs have not been featured in any SIGCOV I can find. There is also routine coverage of middle school and high school theater performances from over a decade ago, but I don't see it rising to level of notability. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails guidelines set by WP:SINGER. Sources addressing music are just links to spotify/youtube/apple music. Sources addressing school musical career are just local interest pieces. The source "'Wonka' at the Warner in Torrington" doesn't seem to mention Savino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 04:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Truthnope. Also per WP:MILL and per the lack of any encyclopedic content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:SINGER or WP:ANYBIO. The only coverage I can find is what's already in the article - a local newspaper reporting that the subject, as a 13 year old, would appear in a school performance. No coverage of her songs or singing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we routinely delete articles about people who have millions of followers on YouTube, and the subject has "thousands" of listeners. Bearian (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't found any significant coverage on the subject, so I don't believe it meets the WP:NMUSIC criteria. Additionally, most of the sources in the current article are unreliable. Baqi:) (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Star Mississippi 22:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Premer Somadhi

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

[2] ttps://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/ALGOL/

[1]

[1]