Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 13 January 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Waikanae. However, I would note that AFD is not the proper venue for merge proposals. Please follow WP:MERGE in the future. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waikanae Park

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

I can't find any sources apart from the council. I believe that the article Waikanae should instead have a couple of sentences about it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I see the arguments to delete as substantively stronger: the arguments that the entries are ones that would never be plausibly referred to as simply "gardening" are persuasive. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page is all partial title matches and some related topics. I don't believe there's any real need for disambiguation on this one; the search results can do their job. Cremastra (u — c) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- so... what is the policy argument, here? I'm not really for or against it (leaning keep, but not strongly), but it seems to me that there should be, at-minimum, be a WP:DABCOMBINE, WP:DABNAME, etc., argument being presented. EDIT: sorry, I see PTM. I dunno, I'm seeing Gardening (cryptanalysis) and I could make an argument for all the "Gardening in..." articles... but it does seem to violate PTM. In this case, I would second YuniToumei's contentions. MWFwiki (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only thing that's required to have a disambig page is where "different topics could be referred to by the same search term", per MOS:DAB. The OP makes a good observation about partial title matches being present here (i.e. everything in the Arts, entertainment, and media section); these should be removed. Gardening Australia is definitely a partial title match. But if we look at WP:PTM, it describes that "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name". There is never a situation where you'd call "Gardening Australia" as "Gardening", which is what makes it a textbook PTM. The same cannot be said for many of the other entries though. Impact gardening is gardening, and can be referred to as such. If the definition of gardening is "the process of growing plants for their vegetables, fruits, flowers, herbs, and appearances within a designated space", then I think anything which meets this definition could be disambiguated here, (if not else in a see also section). Something maybe like forest gardening; you're gardening, and people who are forest-minded could plausibly refer to this method the same way, as "gardening", as the process of growing tree plants within a designated space. In any case, with impact gardening, gardening (cryptanalysis), and gardening identified above, that's enough to warrant disambiguation imo. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All but one entry (cryptanalysis) is either a type of gardening, which is or should be covered in the primary topic, or a partial match. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LASTING, no sustained coverage CutlassCiera 21:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 7 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! 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax

[edit]
2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a permastub incident that took place 13 years ago. Unlike what was said at the previous AFD, it had no lasting consequences. This article is rarely visited as it is linked to nowhere since it was a minor incident. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disregarding all news attention, received quite a bit of academic attention for its legal considerations and relation to drug trade/ internet usage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], for a random selection. Quite a bit more if I looked harder. That it is a stub is of no consideration for notability, as stubs are not against the rules. Could very well be linked to several pages if expanded. Seems quite the unique incident and much could be written on its background/impacts/events from these sources, so it does pass WP:NEVENT. Very clearly not a permastub, as it can be expanded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 7 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! 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Software rot. Any content worth merging may be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Software entropy

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

I WP:BLARd this to software rot about a year ago, but was just reverted. Software entropy (this AFD) seems almost identical to software rot, and software entropy doesn't have much content. Recommend redirecting to software rot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree on redirect. I've added a section on software entropy to the software rot article to migrate some of the information as suggested in the revert, but the rest of this article looks to just be OR or less well worded duplicates of information already there. Chaste Krassley (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • !vote My comment was: Concept are close, but content should be properly migrated before deletion. I think link to the Lehman's laws and the "Fixing broken windows" metaphor are also important (in the history). I've added it to the software rot page. Dhmoclex (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Per nomination. Software rot and software entropy are conceptually the same thing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Dao method

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

I cannot find anything to suggest this topic is notable, and it reads entirely like a promotional piece. Fails WP:GNG CoconutOctopus talk 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Tourist Guide to Lancre

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

A WP:BEFORE search shows only unreliable sources or bare mentions. This article has not passed WP:SIGCOV. A redirect target could be Discworld. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard's sources and expansion would make a merge WP:UNDUE, although I concur with PARAKANYAA that an article on the Mapp series would be ideal. In the absence of that, however, keep. Jfire (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to above target. I afded another book in this series a while ago. I think the best solution would be an article on the Mapp sub series, but we do not have that yet, so to here they go for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources by Cunard. I now think that this is enough to be undue weight merged to its target and to support notability. However I don't think it would be undue weight on a "Mapps" article still, so if an article on that got made I would perhaps support merging it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Butler, Andrew M. (2007). An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Oxford: Greenwood World Publishing. p. 373–374. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Internet Archive.

      The book provides 434 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Subtitled A Discworld Mapp Including a Pyctorial Guide to the Lancre Fells and a description of a picturefque and charming walk in thys charming and hospitable country. It was originally published by Corgi in an edition of 75,000 and has been translated into Czech. It was devised by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Briggs, with a view of Lancre painted by Paul Kidby. The third Discworld map, this time depicting Lancre, an area in the Ramtops which is notable for its Witches. As usual the pattern is an illustrated booklet relating to the area in question, and the map itself. This time there is no explanation as to the process of mapping, but then unlike Ankh-Morpork and the Discworld there was less evidence to reconcile."

      The book notes: "It also contains 'An additional Vue of Lankre' by Nanny Ogg which offers further description of Lancre and its witches, and reads as if it were dictated to a scribe — as no doubt it was, for the sum of a dollar. This is supplemented with her account of Lancre folk lore, such as the Lancre Oozer, A Mummers Play and the Witch Trials."

    2. Alton, Anne Hiebert (2014). "Coloring in Ocarine: Visual Semiotics and Discworld". In Alton, Anne Hiebert; Spruiell, William C. (eds.). Discworld and the Disciplines: Critical Approaches to the Terry Pratchett Works. Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-0-7864-7464-6. ProQuest 2134885875. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Google Books.

      The book provides 321 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Like the first two Discworld maps, A Tourist Guide to Lancre: A Discworld Mapp includes prefatory material written by Pratchett and Briggs, along with short essays serving as introductions to the area by the fictional champion walker, Eric Wheelbrace, and Gytha Ogg, as well as a lengthier extract from Wheelbrace’s A Pictorial Guide to the Lancre Fells and a concluding note by Nanny Ogg on Folk Lore of Lancre. Their essays are decorated with a few small illustrations of items such as a compass and a set of wire-cutters—indicating Wheelbrace’s habits and attitudes towards the thorny issue of right-of-way in the countryside—as well as a stone footbridge, a well, and a view (subtly presented from the side) of the Long Man."

      The book notes: "The Lancre map provides an excellent sense of the sheer verticality of the Kingdom, as well as presenting a better awareness than the novels do of the distance between Granny’s cottage and Nanny’s house in town. Like the other maps, by indicating a sense of geographic proportions it reinforces the idea of the geographic space of the Discworld, however imaginary."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. Burrows, Marc (2020). The Magic of Terry Pratchett. Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-52676-550-5. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Google Books.

        The book notes: "Two more 'mapps', A Tourist Guide to Lancre and Death's Domain, followed in 1998 and 1999, though neither sold as well as the first two, with the final mapp receiving a print run which was less than half of the first. Rather than true maps, the Lancre and Death's Domain fold-outs featured detailed aerial views with artwork handled by another addition to the Discworld family, Paul Kidby."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Tourist Guide to Lancre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. The finds by Cunard are decent, but primarily are just summaries of what the book is as well as some minor commentary on sales figures. Works on Wikipedia need to be covered in a non-summary style that show their impact, which the demonstrated sources don't provide. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow the pinged editors and others to consider Cunard's improvements and provide input as to whether the 'new' version is merge or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I am entirely discounting the nominator's opinions, but even among the other !votes there is clear consensus that there is not substantive coverage of this term. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Cool

[edit]
Jihad Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD |


Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be if it was a frequent-use neologism, whereas this term is not frequently used in WP:RSs. See WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Essentially the entire text of this article is already repeated in the second part of the lede of Jihadism. --OrebroVi (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rationale. This was merely a fleeting neologism that never gained serious currency. The timing is probably key. A few sources mentioned it in 2014, and then ISIS took off, so there wasn't anything remotely cool about the popular conception of Jihad any more and the term swiftly died a death. If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject. As it is, it's simply a meme that never really took off and doesn't really merit a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikitionary, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To establish consensus either way on GreenC's defence offered, which Iskander323 has replied to. Further input on this issue by other editors would be great and might allow for a clearer consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Wow, this term hasn't aged well... Briefly used in the 2010's then, never went anywhere. More of a cool new word than anything notable at this point. Brief uses of the word, then nothing since. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability does not expire. -- GreenC 03:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I know, it wasn't notable then either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an opinion, but 8 sources then, plus more later. What do you require? How about something from the Washington Post in 2009:
    "They use hip-hop elements for some who relate to that." Bray said "seductive videos" gradually lure young people, building outrage over atrocities committed against Muslims. Extremist videos "play to what we call in the Muslim youth community 'jihad cool' -- a kind of machismo that this is the hip thing to do."
    Something "we call in the Muslim youth community". Are you down with that community, do you know anything about it. When you don't know about something, we rely on reliable sources. And reliable sources are telling this is well known within the Muslim youth community. You can disagree, but do we trust your personal opinion, or that opinion of those within the community who use the term. See WP:SYSTEMIC. -- GreenC 16:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I took a look at GreenC's sources. The Compassionate Counterterrorism source just cites the Wiki article. As for the "significant coverage", the first of them is a dictionary entry, another of them uses the word once in a section heading but says nothing subsequently about the "jihad cool" concept, and the third is a brief mention in congressional testimony, which is not a reliable source even if it was sigcov. (t · c) buidhe 02:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are misrepresenting the sources:
    • A "Political Dictionary" is not actually a dictionary, in the sense of a regular dictionary. The author assembled a relatively small selection of terms and wrote mini essays about those terms, all of which have common themes. It's not like Websters or OED which are broad and take in everything, it's selective.
    • "Compassionate Counterterrorism", I mentioned above: "This Wikipedia article was cited in the book", it's concerning we would damage the trail of footnotes by deleting the article making future researches ability to read the Wikipedia article difficult to impossible.
    • The Future of Terrorism, the entire section is about this concept, why the section header is titled "Jihad Cool".
    • Congressional testimony by Committee on Homeland Security. I'm curious why you think this is an unreliable source. If your answer is PRIMARY then it's not primary and even if it was primary they are not unreliable, and are permissible. -- GreenC 03:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of WP:NOTDICT is that dictionaries don't count as coverage. The Future of Terrorism source does not discuss the "Jihad Cool" concept at all. If I'm wrong, please quote me where it does. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct, standard dictionaries do not demonstrate notability, but this is more like a monograph by a single author, it uses "dictionary" in its title but it's not like a normal dictionary.
    The concept of Jihad Cool, as our article explains, is the use of popular culture (social media, videos, clothing etc) to make Jihadism seem fashionable and desirable to young people. This is what the book discusses. For example it says "ISIS propaganda expertly uses hip-hop music .. to convince young people .. " That is the concept of Jihad Cool, and why the section is titled Jihad Cool. -- GreenC 04:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The source says that Isis doesn't "expertly use hip-hop music .. to convince young people .. " You're quoting out of context. It says this is a misconception, and also does not support the statement that this misconception is called "Jihad Cool". So it's not usable as a source without original research. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if they agree with the concept or not, they are discussing it because clearly this is a notable subject. Are you seriously suggesting the section title "Jihad Cool" is completely random and has nothing to do with section? Can you explain why they called the section "Jihad Cool"? What is a typographical error, a sort of random monkey kind of thing? -- GreenC 16:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless the source directly says what it means by "Jihad Cool", it is not usable IMV per our WP:NOR rules. Section headings don't often provide sufficient clarity of what the author means, and it's not safe to assume that everything contained in this section must qualify, or that Wikipedia editors can tell what does and does not. (t · c) buidhe 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your making stuff up. The section clearly concerns Jihad Cool. It's titled Jihad Cool, it describes the idea exactly the same way our article does. It is sufficient for notability. -- ~ GreenC 16:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Article? You mean the two paragraphs? I think this is rather the point. Where you seem to see something, a lot of us just see a nothingburger. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't AfD articles because they are stubs. The book we are discussing (have you looked at it?) contains multiple pages of content that can be used to expand our article. Plus the other sources linked here, not yet in the article. You even said, "If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject." Precisely what The Future of Terrorism does, in part. -- GreenC 18:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be willing to change my mind if more good sources were found and added to the article. I mean, don't ref-bomb, but show me the sources. Bearian (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If WP:ARS still existed ie. the core people there kicked off AfD by ugly ANI threads .. we would have no problem HEY'ing this article, working together as a team. For one person, it's a big lift of time and effort. So I can't say I will be able to do that right now. The end result of the demise of ARS was the loss of time and energy to improve articles in emergency situations with the clocking ticking.
    • What I can say, sources are in the article including academic papers, Sources are in this AfD, including the Washington Post, and books. One person's improvement is another's ref bomb. AfD is not cleanup. etc.. the most important thing right now is to answer if the topic (not the article) is a notable one based on the sources.
    • I'm also concerned by who initiated this AfD. Guarantee they have other accounts, and working with other editors offline. They were overly sure of themselves they could delete this article during pre-AfD discussions, not interested in discussing it. -- GreenC 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Computer Access

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

Non GNG Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG and appears to be WP:PROMO -Samoht27 (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-GNG spam.Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Bachelet

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

Even appearing in a highly visible television show neither makes this person a high-profile person nor prevents him from being subject to WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. Sure, he became a chef de partie at a Michelin-starred restaurant. Nonetheless, with all achievements he has made so far, I'm doubtful that he would meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC, no matter how many sources have been used to verify info about him. Much of relevant info should be merged into List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Dylan Bachelet. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akili Kids!

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

Doesnt match WP:GNG no one good source Pollia (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Most of the sources I found (currently 13) are from Kenyan websites, with two American sources (an American university where one of its alumni helped set up the channel; and Kidscreen), as well as websites regarding technical developments in the television industry and Kenyan newspapers. RandomMe98 22:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are not just sufficient enough, but also good enough for the channel to meet GNG standards. Ilhamnobi (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roofer.com

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

Doesnt match [WP:ORG] Pollia (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have hoped for a more robust nomination statement, but the sources are a mix of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:TRADES publications, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and other non-qualifying sources, and the subject fails WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Doctor Who Live

[edit]
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Doctor Who Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable live show from 2010. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, as there is no coverage following its October 2010 airing, and there is minimal coverage from beforehand. No notable reviews, reception, or analysis. All hits for Doctor Who Live in Books and Scholar discuss other events with similar names, such as Doctor Who Live: The Afterparty and Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor, and not this show. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrów, Tuchola County

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, not included in TERYT. Malarz pl (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find it in TERYT, Polish wikipedia article states (translated) that it is "an unofficial colony". Kiwipete (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nad Kanałem

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, not included in TERYT. Malarz pl (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lipce, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, not included in TERYT. Malarz pl (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination has been withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onu (pronoun)

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

Can't find any reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, so the article fails WP:GNG Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article, due to LIrala's good work in finding reliable sources for the article. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Glennon

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

Tennis player never ranked inside top 900. Some stuff on gotigersgo regarding his collegiate career but failing GNG. Canary757 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and England. Canary757 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Played one ATP Tour doubles match and lost, only existing reference is actually about the upgraded seats in the stadium that the tournament was played at and only mentions him in one sentence. The only coverage I can find about him is on a website for the college he attended, which from other AFD discussions I have read, does not count as independent third party coverage. If that is not the case, and that coverage is allowed, then I would change my vote to keep as there is an extensive biography about him and another article on him being named the American Athletic Conference men's tennis player of the week.
    Shrug02 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Gârz

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

First, let’s deal with the Nobel Prize nomination. For starters, any one of thousands of people can nominate anyone else, so a nomination by itself doesn’t mean much. Second, I really doubt the “G. Floran” on page 3 is our man Gârz. For one, he didn’t even begin publishing until the early 1990s, and the nomination is from 1974. For another, Eugène Ionesco, the nominator, was a diehard opponent of the Romanian Communist regime — while at the very period of the nomination, our man Gârz was a faithful acolyte of the regime, serving as a loyal officer in its secret police. So unless this was an elaborate Absurdist joke, Ionesco did not nominate an unknown apparatchik for the world’s most prestigious literary award.

Second, let’s quickly dispense with this. Anyone can publish anything on academia.edu. Unless we have evidence that this piece appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or similarly prestigious publication, it’s not quotable.

Finally, let’s have a look at the three remaining sources. For starters, they appear in a magazine nobody has heard of. I know this isn’t the most scientific way to measure such things, but it has under 800 Facebook likes; by contrast, the leading Romanian popular history magazine has 656,000. It’s basically a one-man show revolving around its founder, who occasionally writes articles, together with some of his friends. Our man Gârz (who, by the way, died three years ago, as one of the links attests) was basically a second-rate spy with third-rate opinions, such as: “I came into the world in that ancient land of Transylvania, where words like ‘fatherland’ and ‘ancestor’ are learned together with ‘mother’”; or “No American politician since 1950 has entered the White House without the approval of the military-industrial complex”.

In sum, far from being a contender for the Nobel, our man Gârz, once he got around to writing in his late 50s, was the author of a series of dubious books published with obscure houses. Aside from three articles in an utterly marginal magazine, he never garnered any attention from anyone, certainly not from respectable outfits. There is no reason we should keep around his biography. — Biruitorul Talk 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I respectfully accede to the speedy deletion of the article. Thank you! JB Hoang Tam 2 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I just don't see any other option here. These debates are based on policy, not emotions, and the delete camp made policy-based arguments to support their position. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ivory Williams Jr.

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NENTERTAINER. While the article breathlessly claims Williams Jr. as a pioneer in the evolution of Contemporary Gospel music and Jazz fusion, this just isn't borne out by the available sources. The cited sources do not adequately provide secondary coverage of Williams Jr.'s life or accomplishments, and throughout the article claims of significance are backed up by listings in discographies (e.g. [13]) and the like.

Doing my own search for sources, I was able to find coverage of Williams Jr.'s evidently more-notable father, Williams Sr., which mentions Jr. briefly ([14]) and mere-mentions in catalogs (e.g. [15]), but nothing that would satisfy ntoability guidelines. The article's primary editor has a COI, which was acknowledged on their user talk page. I think that redirecting this page to Jr's notable father, Harold Ivory Williams, is appropriate here. I believe this still merits consideration at AfD rather than WP:BLAR, as it has been repeatedly been submitted and declined at AfC prior to being accepted by a reviewer. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ivory Williams is listed as a pioneer by virtue of the time period of the birth of the
both the Fusion (1959-1990) in particular the added element of Gospel (Harold Ivory Williams being the first to add the Organ with Gospel structured chords) on the "On the Corner" project with Miles Davis) and the transition of the conventional Golden Era Gospel to Contemporary Gospel as evidenced on of his solo performance at the Carnegie Hall) to Contemporary Gospel. Traditional Jazz did not have the element of electronic instruments (in particular the Fender Rhodes introduced in the 70,s as an example) as Fusion. The timing of the references demonstrates that he was one of the pioneers in that era and the first to add gospel element. In fact Miles sought him out because of that. Like wise, the Golden Era of Gospel that my father was a part of evolved in the late 60's but the jazz element began in the 70's. I attempted to demonstrate those claims with projects in the specific time frames. I used the word pioneer [1] because that is what a pioneer is according to your own definition. (Involving accomplishments or activities that have not been done before, or developing or using new methods or techniques) Someone that is a participatory factor in the beginning or birthing period. Both Miles Davis official website and James Cleveland's Carnegie Hall performance validate that claim.
As the author of the article, I would like to thank Wikipedia for allowing me to contribute. I vote keepWilliamsivy (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argumentation you provide here would be reasonable for a magazine article or research paper to make. Wikipedia, however, is not a publisher of original thought; we want existing reliable sources to directly state what the subject is or isn't, not to infer it by association. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular WP user, I found the article - about an artist unknown to me who contributed to some of my favourite songs - very informative and I thank the author. If anything, maybe delete the opionions or parts that do not seem to be to be within WP's bounds only or maybe and some sources. 95.98.136.193 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am gathering sources that show that every musician on Miles Davis projects that include Harol Ivory Williams is given the respect of being recognized as a contributing pioneer to Jazz Fusion. Even many approved articles here on Wikipedia. Why would/should Harold's pioneering contributions to the evolution of Jazz Fusion be excluded or dismissed? Even Miles estate recoognizes his contributions to Fusions behinnings. I will list my claims later today in hopes that efitors at leady see the contridiction in acknowledging some on Wikipedia and denying others. I need to format my claims according to wiki preferences. Williamsivy (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive my typos. Williamsivy (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the definition of COI and felt that I should explain my position. I am the last of the Williams bloodline, the executor of Harold's Ivory Williams estate, and the last to tell the story of their accomplishments. My brother fell ill on the cusp of international fame. He was recognized and validated by many greats as my parents knew most of them and his talent opened doors. I am still gathering documents to validate those claims. Their is no one else to tell the story. Once again, I am a believer in Wikipedia and a contributor, so I respect and graciously accept what looks like the decision to delete. I would also say that the categories that he would fit in contain the names of many that he mentored and worked along side who's only claim to fame was that they too established themselves in the genre. On another note; We need Wikipedia's contributions to the world and I will fight along side many others to protect and maintain it's right to exist. Williamsivy (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the unsung deserve being dismissed? Williamsivy (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for his Grammy Participation certificates on 2 separate projects. Would having a Grammy Certificate be considered notable? One is for the solo performance at Carnegie Hall as noted in the profile page. Williamsivy (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pioneering
  • Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable subjects with notability established by set by criteria established via consensus of the community. Additionally notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of working with notable people. Not having a Wikipedia article is not a "dismissal" of anyone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the purpose of the pages listed as the following: Category: American jazz pianists, Category: American male pianists, Category: Jazz fusion pianists, Category: American organists, Category: American keyboardists, Category:1949 births, Category: Musicians from Baltimore, Category:20th-century American pianists, Category: Jazz musicians from Maryland. I am genuinely confused as to why some qualify as notable and other do not. Surely he fits in those categories at the least. Williamsivy (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are for sorting and organization, they have no bearing on notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 11:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Czech and Slovak Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
2007 Czech and Slovak Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2008 Czech and Slovak Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable articles that have been around for over a decade and never had a single source/reference that established notability for these yearly events. Every single edit since creation never had a source added. No in-depth coverage exists and all criteria of notability are not met.

Very similar to a bunch of national figure skating articles nominated in recent days. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Leon-Chisen

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

No independent sigcov to establish notability. Search hits are either self-published or routine references to her book. Jdcooper (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but we don't really have a quorum here. Even one more !vote would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable individual, zero sourcing, The ICD codes used are what hospitals in the US use to bill patients, the disease classifications, also use for statistical purposes with the UN as I recall. She's an office person in charge of this code system it sounds like. Might have a pass at AUTHOR if reviews of the book can be found, but highly unlikely, it's too specialized. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This doesn't show notability, but explains what we're talking about [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Vietnamese

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

Non-notable, as there are no WP:RS to back this up, nor does web searching find anything signifcant to suggest it circulated in the West — The Anome (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 138573

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
HD 138573 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like keep, but an additional view would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge‎ to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. This AfD is marked by a lot of poor argument. When the rationale not to retain this article is that it is a POV fork, "keep, obviously notable" carries very little weight, as notability is not being challenged: there is consensus that there is encyclopedic content in this article, and the question is of what title and what framing to present it under. Conversely, when notability isn't being challenged, outright deletion requires a specific argument as to why that is more appropriate than a merger.
Discounting sock comments and drive-by comments with no substance: I see little reasoned justification for outright deletion, and those arguing for it by and large support merging. As such deletion is off the table. Many of the "keep" arguments are not substantive: the few that were argued that there is enough material to justify a standalone article, or that the topic is distinct from related articles such as anti-zionism or from the river to the sea. These are more than balanced by substantive arguments for a merger or redirection to Legitimacy of the State of Israel, which argue that the scope of that article encompasses this one, or that the material in this article is covered elsewhere already, which is an argument the keep side largely fails to address. Combined with the numerical tilt among substantive !votes, I see a consensus for a merger. I note that this does not necessarily preclude a future split if consensus supports it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for the destruction of Israel

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

In the year since the closure of the prior AfD this article has remained a NPOV non-compliant coatrack article that synthesizes elements from Anti-Zionism and from Antisemitism. The article has an unclear scope but there is no dispute at article talk that it has not remained within its scope. As it is a coatrack whose scope is entirely covered by other, better, articles the best course of action is to cut this article, merging anything relevant, appropriately sourced and compliant with WP:NPOV into those articles whose scope overlaps this article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed further, I actually think the proper home for this is under Legitimacy of Israel. So I would support a merge to Legitimacy of Israel. Anything that doesn't fit us already covered under Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism. Lewisguile (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (merge at best) to Anti-Zionism. The current page is ill-defined and those voting keep have shown no interest in presenting any sources that show how it is "well-defined" or merits a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
📠 إيان (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with the caveat that it realigns itself with NPOV. I’d say there’s more than enough information out there to speak for the notability of the topic considering the context of the past… maybe 30/40 years? (Not gonna go all the way back to ‘48 on this) But that being said, article’s current form seems very heated, so-to-speak. Sinclairian (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly a notable topic and the arguments for deletion are not really policy-based. Concerns about neutrality should be handled through WP:BRD as usual, not by WP:NUKEing the article. The scope seems reasonably clear to me (any article about movement, school of thought, etc. will have some gray areas), but it can also be further clarified on the talk page. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POVFORK is what most delete !votes are based on, and its valid grounds to delete an article.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems WP:POVFORK is being used erroneously to just refer to an article with perceived NPOV issues (and some related articles), though. Really POV forking refers to a process, and noone is actually arguing that that process occurred here. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mini POV forks added together to make a POV list, sounds like a process to me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what a mini POV fork would be. Unless this article was created to work around a consensus elsewhere, it isn't a POV fork at all, just an article with some related articles. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is a synthesis of random material strung together as if it were an actual topic when there is no such topic, it's just a list of material that is mostly already contained in other related articles. While individual items might be verifiable, there is no coherent linkage between them, thus the whole thing fails WP:V. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V is about the material in an article, not its topic/scope. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COATRACK and WP:POV_fork are both very problematic here and unaddressed by any keep !votes. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    COATRACK is not a good argument for deletion for a few reasons -
    • It's only an essay.
    • The majority of its criticism doesn't apply in this case - there's no excessive detail here, and no content that veers away from the article's topic.
    • It generally suggests remedies other than deletion, except in extreme cases.
    I don't see why this would be a POVFORK, which refers to a process of creating an article with content that was rejected by consensus elsewhere. Is there evidence that such a process occurred here? Even if it did, that would have been over a year ago, and we don't tend to delete older articles based on the process by which they were originally created. — xDanielx T/C\R 06:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Sure the article never should have been created but that's not a reason to delete it," is your position then? Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Right - POV forking is about the creation process, so we shouldn't apply it to an older article with a bunch of contributors for the same reason that we wouldn't apply WP:G5.
    In any case, no evidence has been offered showing that the creation process here was that of a POV fork, i.e. adding material after it was rejected by consensus elsewhere. Without that, the POVFORK claim is baseless anyway. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a POV fork as such just a collection of bits from other articles presented in a one sided fashion as "Calls". Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this attempt to apply a strict letter of WP:POVFORK without consideration of the spirit of the rules is a transparently weak justification for keeping an article that exists simply to pervert the NPOV balance of a contentious topic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:V The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
    Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy
    Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is 100% GNG. So much content about this from many sources. What Sinclairian says about there being enough info is true. I do not know why you think it is OR. People and countries said they want to destroy Israel, this is a fact not OR. Boksi (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination or maybe even redirect to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. I think that could be a way around WP:POVFORK and WP:CSECTION here. Just because people have said these things doesn't mean they deserve a standalone article (WP:BITR). The previous AfD did not answer the criticisms of the article being a fork of anti-zionism, just asserted that because people said the things quoted in the article, it was worth keeping around. As other editors have mentioned in this second attempt, that alone is not enough to keep an article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I wrote the article, and of course, I support keeping it. I agree with all the reasons mentioned here. I understand that there are discussions about the content, and like any article written on this topic, it evokes emotions from both sides. That is not a reason to delete it. It is backed by sources and data.Eliezer1987 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Was this also a translation from He WP? Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, in this case, it was the opposite. I first wrote the article in English, and after a few months, I decided to translate it into Hebrew. Eliezer1987 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems pretty obvious to me why this subject is notable and deserves its own article.(By the way, I hope my vote is alright technically speaking) Have a great day! Shoogiboogi (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Imagine a rules-based deletion discussion system where statements of the form "It seems pretty obvious to me why..." without a policy-based argument explaining why had zero value. Under those circumstances your vote would be ignored. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firecat (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This page was created to be able to create and maintain one-sided coverage of the topic of "From the river to the sea", by only including viewpoints that describe this phrase as a call for the destruction of Israel, and surrounding it with content about terrorist organizations, while not describing its usage and not including any nuance present in the existing article about the phrase. The "From the river to the sea" content has since been removed, but doing so did not fix the fundamental problem. From this, there's been a pivot to one-sided coverage of the topic of Palestinian right of return, by only including viewpoints that describe this political position as a call for the destruction of Israel, while not describing what the Palestinian right of return is, and not including views of those who support Palestinian right of return. Therefore, as it stands, this is now a not-so-subtle POV-fork of the Palestinian right of return article. The same goes for BDS: Have an ability to define it as a call for the destruction of Israel without describing what it is and not including any viewpoints of members of the BDS movement. This is a problem which can not be fixed by editing, because the subject is formulated in such a way. Note the plural in the title. This is not a coherent subject. Structurally, the page is a list that conflates the regional enemies of Israel with movements and political positions that are critical of Israeli state policy and which Israel sees as a threat. Good for a pamphlet, not good for an encyclopedia.—Alalch E. 15:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've withdrawn my comment as I don't want to participate in a discussion in which I'm accused of wanting to hide information, because it's inconvenient to the POV [I] wish to push to have this notable topic be covered. I don't currently have the mental capacity to grapple with such accusations, this is no longer an AfD, it's a battleground, it's not what I signed up for, and I don't want to participate.—Alalch E. 05:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and redirect) or dratify per nom and per my statements on its talk page (here). While I can potentially see an article with this title (or preferably a more neutral title such as "Calls for the dissolution of Israel") being warranted, this article in its current form is simply not what that article would/should be. I don't think there is much content worth merging. Mason7512 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting GNG/notability doesn't mean its not a POVFORK.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I am saying this page is on the subject different from From the river to the sea. "From the river to the sea" does NOT mean the destruction of Israel, possibly exactly the opposite. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were calls for destruction of many countries, like Russia, USA, etc. However, only in the case of Israel such claims were so widespread and so notable that they deserve a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As others have pointed out, this is effectively a coat rack page that can fit just as well on another page like anti Zionism for example as a subsection. Furthermore Israel is the only country that has a Wikipedia page like this which seems like a very bizarre standard, there is no precedent for a page like this as such it should be deleted and moved to a different page. Genabab (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is rather obvious that it is a notable topic, considering how often it is reported in media, and how much discourse there is around overt calls and edge cases. I am surprised by the number of academic sources, more than I expected to see. Though (as always) the article needs more such sources, and while the structure can be improved, neither are reasons to delete it. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just want to point out that most/all POVFORKs meet WP:NOTABILITY as evidenced by the existence of the prior article they are forked from.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's right, and an article being a POV fork is one of the enumerated reasons to delete the article under the deletion policy: WP:DEL-REASON#5. At the same time, the guideline governing which topics are eligible for being covered in stand-alone fashion, Wikipedia:Notability, clearly states that a topic being presumed to merit an article because it meets notability criteria is only a presumption and not a guarantee that [the] topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. (Edit: See comment above for the reason for striking) —Alalch E. 12:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The primary deletion rationale being put forward is that this is a POVFORK - as such arguments that this is notable carry little weight, keeping this requires demonstration that a standalone article is justified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting, but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by demonstration that a standalone article is justified. If GNG is met then this is already presumed, so we don't normally expect any positive argument to that effect, only an absence of convincing arguments to the contrary. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disputes that there is notable material in the article (albeit presented non-neutrally) rather the dispute is that all the notable material would be more appropriate (and more neutrally presented) on other existing pages. As such there's little point in polling for additional comments that simply say, "the material is notable" as that is not the deletion criterion being invoked. I thought Vanamonde93 was being perfectly clear with that relisting comment. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx: In a vacuum that is true, but as I stated, many editors here have argued that this is a POVFORK that inappropriately duplicates the scope of some articles - as such that argument needs rebuttal if this is to be kept, whereas most "keep" opinions have focused on notability. I'm endorsing neither side, only pointing out that from the perspective of a closer most "keep" arguments are tangential to the question at hand. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. The article presents a synthesis of material from various sources without providing a clear, unified academic or scholarly perspective. Also the subject is not significant enough to warrant its own article. Whatever can be salvaged is already included in other articles.
Lf8u2 (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this article as a section under Legitimacy of Israel: I see this was discussed before, but I think there is a misunderstanding, if I read the arguments correctly. Calling for Israel's destruction is certainly questioning its' legitimacy, but that doesn't have to mean that questioning its' legitimacy means calling for its' destruction. For example, in Messi's page there is a section for his youth career; his youth career falls under Messi's page but not all of Messi's activities fall under his career. Just like that, calling for Israel's destruction should fall under questioning its' legitimacy, but not all of questioning its' legitimacy necessarily involves calling for its' destruction. Does this make sense? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikieditor662. The relevant section in the Anti-Zionism article currently reads "The overriding impulse of post-1948 anti-Zionism is to dismantle the current State of Israel and replace it with something else." To me, that is synonymous with calling for Israel's destruction. That's why I think this is a POV fork.VR (Please ping on reply) 08:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying we should move this as a section under anti-zionism? I wouldn't be necessarily opposed to that, and we could also move the Legitimacy of Israel article under that too if what you said was true and if the article won't get too long because of that. I'd also not be opposed to deleting this if it doesn't contribute useful reliable information not contained in the other articles.
    Either way, whatever we do, I don't think it would make sense to have this article and the Legitimacy of Israel article to be two distinct ones.Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep relevant and notable Codonified (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge content per nom. The coatrack analogy is especially apt when looking at the contemporary discourse section; many perspectives/groups are mentioned with no clear link and with balance issues. For example, the lead and history sections give an implication of a connection between Nasser and modern Islamist groups and the Palestinian right of return section is one-sided in viewpoint. Including adequate arguments on both sides would be simply reiterating articles that already exist, whilst keeping the focus limited to one side would just be fundamentally biased. Originalcola (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously a notable topic - there's more than ample reliable sources that have entire articles or sections (for a book, for example) that are dedicated to discussing how people "phrase" calling for the destruction of Israel, how they wish to go about it, their reasonings, etc. Furthermore, it is not a fork, because it is a sufficiently independent topic that is covered independently from the suggested merge topics. Everyone claiming this is a POVFORK has not said how it is not a notable topic on its own right - only that they want to see it combined with another article. There is a difference between the questioning the legitimacy of something and calling for its destruction. There are many people who call for Israel's discussion without questioning it's legitimacy - i.e. they feel that the state of Israel is legitimate (i.e. there is a well founded legal basis for its existence) but still do not personally want to see Israel existing. Those saying it is a POVFORK are doing it because it is a topic they don't wish to see addressed. In other words, rather than this being a true POVFORK, it is an article on a a topic they don't like or are trying to hide, because it's inconvenient to the POV they wish to push to have this notable topic be covered. So no, this is not a POVFORK, it's merely an article about a topic that is inconvenient to one POV. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what’s the scope of the topic? The ‘keeps’ insist the topic is notable and well-defined, but can’t say whether it is about calls to end a state or a people. The conflation of the two is the non-encyclopedic POV that is the essence of the article’s issues, including POVFORK. إيان (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yubo Ruan

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

Limited coverage in mostly poor-quality sources. The Business Insider piece is probably the strongest source in terms of significant coverage and reliability, but even that is questionable. The rest are either trivial mentions or unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow analysis of the sources identified in the last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm not a native English speaker, because I use translation tools sometimes there can be typos. We - I. DanikS88 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. The sources found by DanikS88 (talk · contribs):
      1. "阮宇博入选"2022福布斯中国Web3.0创新先锋评选"" [Ruan Yubo was selected for the "2022 Forbes China Web3.0 Innovation Pioneer Selection"]. The Outlook Magazine (in Chinese). 2023-03-31. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Sina Corporation.

        The article is very positive but The Outlook Magazine seems to be a sufficiently reliable source in being a similar source to WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA. The article notes: "出生于1996年的阮宇博，对于二进制的计算机世界，有着天生的热爱和天才般的动手能力。早在中学期间，他就拿到了13项科技发明大奖和5项专利，包括“微软Imagine Cup一等奖”、“德国纽伦堡发明大赛第一名”、“全国机器人大赛一等奖”等诸多名誉，技术方面的造诣和沉淀，为阮宇博的创业提供了源动力。"

        From Google Translate: "Born in 1996, Ruan Yubo has a natural love for the binary computer world and a genius-like hands-on ability. As early as in middle school, he won 13 science and technology invention awards and 5 patents, including "Microsoft Imagine Cup First Prize", "German Nuremberg Invention Competition First Prize", "National Robot Competition First Prize" and many other honors. His technical attainments and accumulation provided the source of power for Ruan Yubo's entrepreneurship."

        The article notes: "为了继续深造学业和开拓视野，阮宇博先后在波斯顿大学、宾夕法尼亚大学和斯坦福大学就读计算机和金融学等专业。或许天才都有着类似的命运线，阮宇博跟乔布斯和比尔·盖茨的大学经历一样，在读斯坦福期间便选择了肄业，随后进入著名华人科学家张首晟创办的丹华资本，并联合创办了Skylight Investment，从此开启他的金融投资人生。"

        From Google Translate: "In order to continue his studies and broaden his horizons, Ruan Yubo studied computer science and finance at Boston University, University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University. Perhaps geniuses all have similar fates. Ruan Yubo had the same college experience as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. He chose to drop out while studying at Stanford, and then joined Danhua Capital founded by the famous Chinese scientist Shousheng Zhang, and co-founded Skylight Investment, starting his financial investment life."

      2. Wu, Mengyang 吴梦阳 (2018-10-18). "八维资本阮宇博：熊市洗投机者 不意味行业终结" [Eight Dimensions Capital's Ruan Yubo: A Bear Market Clears Out Speculators, but It Doesn't Mean the End of the Industry] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

        This article is very positive but NetEase seems to be a sufficiently reliable source in being a similar source to WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA. The article notes: "“熊市的正确姿态”第一期，我们专访了八维资本创始人阮宇博，阮宇博生于1996年，年仅22岁。但其创立的八维资本投资了0x、... 在创立八维资本之前，阮宇博已然名声在外。从6岁开始，便钻研IT技术及无线电、单片机方面的应用，随后参加各种科技创新大赛，并取得了不俗的成绩。投资人阮宇博的专业精神，也是在不断进行各种发明研究的同时，逐渐积累而形成的。对于技术出身的阮宇博来说，从技术层面上去筛选区块链投资项目，可以避免很多空气币的项目，正是由于其在技术上精益求精的专业精神，使得八维资本在投资路径上一直保持稳健。阮宇博高中毕业就开始了自己的创业之路，创立了儿童智能硬件公司阿里辛巴，创业之路虽有坎坷，但也为其之后进入投资行业打下了坚实的基础。"

        From Google Translate: "In the first issue of "The Right Attitude in a Bear Market", we interviewed Ruan Yubo, the founder of Eight Dimension Capital. Ruan Yubo was born in 1996 and is only 22 years old. But the Eight Dimension Capital he founded invested in 0x,... Before founding Eight Dimension Capital, Ruan Yubo was already famous. Since the age of 6, he has been studying IT technology and the application of radio and single-chip microcomputers. Later, he participated in various science and technology innovation competitions and achieved remarkable results. The professionalism of investor Ruan Yubo was gradually accumulated while constantly conducting various inventions and research. For Ruan Yubo, who has a technical background, screening blockchain investment projects from a technical level can avoid many air coin projects. It is precisely because of his professionalism in technology that Eight Dimension Capital has remained stable in its investment path. Ruan Yubo started his entrepreneurial journey after graduating from high school and founded Ali Simba, a children's smart hardware company. Although his entrepreneurial journey was bumpy, it also laid a solid foundation for his subsequent entry into the investment industry."

    2. Sources from 2014 about Yubo Ruan's invention of a "smart piggy bank":
      1. Zhao, Xuan 赵宣 (2014-12-02). "北京中学生发明智能存钱罐 承载留学梦" [Beijing Middle School Student Invents Smart Piggy Bank to Support Study Abroad Dream]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-10-29. Retrieved 2025-01-13.

        The article notes: "来自北京的18岁中学生发明家阮宇博在近期洛杉矶科技周活动上展出自己发明的智能存钱罐，引起关注。这位第一次来美国的高中生计划明年前往美国留学，并将自己的发明带入美国市场。"

        From Google Translate: "Ruan Yubo, an 18-year-old middle school student inventor from Beijing, exhibited his own smart piggy bank at the recent Los Angeles Science and Technology Week event, which attracted attention. This high school student who came to the United States for the first time plans to study in the United States next year and bring his invention to the American market."

        The article notes: "据介绍，阮宇博从小喜欢科技小发明，希望能解决社会以及人们生活上的一些难题，他从5年级开始参加科技创新大赛，并製作过地铁震动发电装置、助老助残机器人和智能存钱罐。小学六年级，他研发出第一代智能存钱罐，迄今已四度更新。"

        From Google Translate: "According to reports, Ruan Yubo has been fond of small technological inventions since he was a child, hoping to solve some problems in society and people's lives. He has participated in science and technology innovation competitions since the fifth grade, and has made subway vibration power generation devices, robots to help the elderly and the disabled, and smart piggy banks. In the sixth grade of elementary school, he developed the first generation of smart piggy banks, which have been updated four times so far."

      2. Mao, Yu 毛宇 (2015-01-05). Zhao, Zhuqing 赵竹青; Ma, Li 马丽 (eds.). "小钱罐"玩"出大创意 带有触屏交互功能类似智能手机" [Small Piggy Bank 'Plays' Big Creativity, Features Touchscreen Interaction Similar to a Smartphone]. Science and Technology Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via People's Daily.

        The article notes: "他叫阮宇博，就读于北京市第八十中学高三年级。他把“龙猫”存钱罐看做自己的创业项目，并投入了7年时间。这7年里，他的另外一些发明还获得了北京市的青少年机器人竞赛一等奖和青少年科技创新大赛二等奖。... 然而坚持带来了转机。阮宇博透露，他所在的八十中鼓励学生科技创新"

        From Google Translate: "His name is Ruan Yubo, and he is a senior student at the 80th Beijing Middle School. He regards the "Totoro" piggy bank as his own entrepreneurial project and has invested 7 years in it. During these 7 years, some of his other inventions have also won the first prize in the Beijing Youth Robot Competition and the second prize in the Youth Science and Technology Innovation Competition. ... However, persistence brought a turning point. Ruan Yubo revealed that his No. 80 Middle School encourages students to innovate in science and technology."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yubo Ruan (Chinese: 阮宇博) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning keep but more analyses of the recently-provided sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Faig Kaddumi

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

Normally productive but apparently undistinguished (in the WP:GNG and WP:PROF senses) geologist and palaeontologist. I can find nothing that would demonstrate recognized extraordinary contributions to the field, honours or appointments received, etc. Some works (e.g. his book on ambers of Jordan [26]) are reasonably cited, but encyclopedia-level notability does not seem present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. His Google Scholar profile indicates that he has a decent number of cited publications, though I make no judgment to his academic notability in my comment. Madeleine (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Citation count is okay, but I don't think it's enough for WP:NPROF#C1 and I don't see any indication he could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. I wasn't able to find any of the reviews of his book that would be necessary to meet WP:NAUTHOR. He's discovered some species, but as far as I know that doesn't count towards notability on its own, so not seeing much of a case for notability. MCE89 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a low-citation field but even so a single-digit h-index and double-digit max citation counts on Google Scholar aren't enough to use WP:PROF#C1. Publishing and naming things (the only scholarly activity described in the article) is normal enough for someone in this field but not something that can be used directly as an argument for notability. His book Amber of Jordan has at least one published review [27] but I didn't find any reviews of Fossils of the Harrana fauna. One reviewed book isn't going to be enough for WP:AUTHOR and one review isn't even enough to make an article on the book and redirect to it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tunku Nadzaruddin

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

Minor royal and non-notable business exec. Sole claim to fame seems to be a lot of awards received from his own family, but sources on the awards are thin on the ground, and on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find only passing mentions in Malay and English, along with a short piece in the Tatler about him holding a party [28]. A redirect to Ja'afar of Negeri Sembilan#Issue might be the best alternative to deletion, but I brought it to AFD for discussion first. See also similar active discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunku Irinah. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Saife Hassan. There is consensus against the existence of a standalone article based on currently available sourcing. There wasn't clear consensus on the target of a redirect: choosing the director as that was suggested, but this is no bar to a retarget. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Man Neel o Neel

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

Presently non-notable TV series. Likely WP:TOOSOON, it only premiered December 2024. No coverage that is actual SIGCOV independent reviews, only things in my BEFORE are re-announcements of press releases or non-independent promotional material. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bobby Cohn
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes ? Unknown
See SIGCOV analysis, this quotes the television network's Instagram post. No Content that relates to the subject at hand Tan Man Neel o Neel is a three sentence paragraph that then quotes an Instagram post by the television network. ✘ No
No Does not discuss the subject other then two references to the show confirming the actors/actresses credits. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Or if you disagree with the above analysis, I would be happy to discuss. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's just [that] a "three sentence paragraph", for example, is not a trivial mention; I would tend to count it for notability, personally.
The same thing goes for the third source: "Tan Man Neel o Neel, which explores the dark effects of mob mentality and the harsh realities of social extremism. In this role, she truly impressed with her ability to step away from the bubbly characters she’s often known for. From her accent to her makeover and the subtlety in her expressions, Sehar proved that she has much more to offer than just light-hearted roles." is a significant mention not a passing mention. Even what is said about Asad - "In Tan Man Neel o Neel, Asad plays the role of a dancer striving to make a breakthrough. Whether it’s his emotional crying scenes or his powerful moments opposite Sehar Khan, he’s truly shining in every scene."- can be considered significant about an aspect of the series.
So, yes, basically, I disagree. Especially as these are bylined articles.
Significance, just like notability, is a threshold.
But again, if everyone thinks a line or two in the page of the director is enough and that reducing mentions of series with notable cast that air on a major network, to redirects is OK, then at least that seems warranted. The article about Mann Jogi mentions this is the third part of a trilogy, so navigation-wise, I would favour a Keep but, again, that's just me. You will generally not get articles in the New York Times about even very popular Pakistani series, so for me Wikipedia:Systemic bias applies, but again, if consensus is that existing coverage is not enough, then, it should prevail. -Mushy Yank. 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I voted the article to stay by --Sunuraju (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Hirjak

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

His professional career lasted only 22 minutes and he disappeared in the 2019–20 season. Regarding secondary sources, I found nothing better than a passing mention on Košice Online. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra Shende

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

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th sources are his orgs [29] [30] (second one is just homepage) [31] [32] [33], 3rd he is just quoted [34], 7th is a PDF of a powerpoint [35], 8 & 9 are some reports he edited [36] [37], 10th is an award which does not mention him (and is mis-atributed in the article to the US EPA instead of UN) [38], the 11th is about an EPA award that is only mentioned by a WP:NEWSORGINDIA [39], 12 is a link to a newspaper archive page [40], 13 is a conflict of interest form PDF? [41], 14 is a broken link, 15 is a duplicate of 11, 16 is a release by his university [42], 17 he is quoted in just one sentence [43], 18 is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Protocol, 19 & 20 are links to his website, 21 simply states he was at an event [44], and 22 is a dead link. 🄻🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Carguychris (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Northrop N-9M crash

[edit]
2019 Northrop N-9M crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Little or no WP:LASTING effects or coverage; basically a WP:ROTM general aviation crash aside from involving an extremely unique and unusual vintage aircraft. As the article is short and easily summarized, propose merging with Northrop N-9M as its own section. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Corporate Public Affairs

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

WP:PROMO article for a non-notable business membership organization. The sources on the article are limited to:

  • Articles/books written by past and present employees or contractors of the organization and thus not independent: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50].
  • WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: [51], [52], [53].
  • The organization's own website and videos/transcripts of speeches given at its flagship event, and other material produced directly by the organization ([54], [55]).

I didn't find anything else in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidy Ndiaye

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

I can’t find in depth coverage of this player so it doesn’t look like he’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bmycharity

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

Not notable (defunct) company; no previous good and reliable media mentions found; Cinder painter (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those Darn Etruscans

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

This term is not a plausible search term for someone interested in the "etruscan civilization" (first entry), and is not mentioned in the second entry (Jeopardy), making it an invalid disambiguation and a poor redirect to either entry. Fram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verano (band)

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

No evidence of notability, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC/WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to verify the chart positions for the singles as germancharts.de and offiziellecharts.de show nothing for this band. Frost 11:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Xtravaganza

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral redraftification., Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nazim Uddin

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

Not enough sources to establish notability, and coverage from reliable sources appears to be lacking. Therefore, I'm not sure if article satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Author also seems eager to remove maintenance templates for no reason, which is quite suspicious and suggests a possible COI. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't find any secondary coverage, so I think WP:NPROF is the only path to notability. The citation count definitely isn't enough to meet WP:NPROF#C1, and the journal that he is Associate Editor in Chief of doesn't seem prominent enough to meet WP:NPROF#C8. But I think he probably meets WP:NPROF#C6 as the Vice-Chancellor of East Delta University. It seems to be a relatively small private university, but is accredited as far as I can tell, meaning that I think he probably meets C6 as someone who has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university. MCE89 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also just linking this AfD that was referenced in this recent discussion on the NPROF talk page, which addresses a similar question of whether the vice-chancellor of a relatively new and small but accredited university is notable under C6. MCE89 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must admit I'm worried; EDU is a rather small private university, and our article about it is rather promotional, sourced mostly to the university itself, and written by the same person who wrote the the article on Mohammed Nazim Uddin. This reeks of COI editing. There is a slightly shady line where traditional academic institutions blend into commercial organisations selling education (and seeking to advertise themselves), and I'm not sure on which side of the line EDU and Mohammed Nazim Uddin fall. I would like to see some independent sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is very fair, I do have the same concern. From what I found it's definitely a small and relatively new university, but I don't think we're in degree mill/fake institution territory. It's a non-profit, accredited institution and the faculty seem to be actual publishing academics from the ones I've checked. The promotional editing is concerning and it's definitely not a particularly prominent university, but it doesn't seem to cross the line into being outright shady as far as I can tell. I did find some potentially independent coverage in Bengali under "ইস্ট ডেল্টা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়", but hard to assess reliability when running things through Google Translate. MCE89 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep.per User:MCE89. I have removed promotional content as well.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I placed {{peacock}} and {{notability}} before Vinegarymass911 took care of them. I still can't see any current encyclopedic relevance, but it could eventually become more relevant in the future, so I would abstain from deletion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. C6 is for VCs of major or significant institutions where appointment would strongly predict academic impact. East Delta University is a tiny, private school in Bangladesh that isn't affiliated with a single article indexed in Scopus (for comparison, East Carolina University (an R2) has 27463 affiliations (+11k from its medical school), University of Dhaka has 14507, even Daffodil International University has 5k). Definitely not a major institution. JoelleJay (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. I don't think we normally give a 'free pass' to pass the PROF test for admins or professors at non-major institutions. Bearian (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above, I am unconvinced of the status of the university as major. I added a Peacock to the University page, which already had two tags (and at a minimum needs work/verification itself). Ldm1954 (talk) 03:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to History of the web browser. Liz Read! Talk! 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of web browsers

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

Article contents is of no encyclopedic value and similar information is presented in a better (and more accessible) way on History of the web browser. YannickFran (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of the web browser, since it's a plausible search term. I would strongly oppose a merge, since the only content not already in that article is a bulky table split by decade, which would make the target article too long and cumbersome to read. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:BD08:A4E3:715F:5B91 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to History of the web browser as a viable WP: ATD. The tables of version numbers in the article are not suitable for this encyclopedia, per WP: NOTCHANGELOG. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Liu Qi (ski jumper)

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

Normally notable ski jumpers have at least competed in the Olympics. The only coverage I could find is from the non independent www.fis-ski.com . Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Zhou, Yuan 周圆 (2013-03-26). "中国女子跳台滑雪涌现新星 世界杯获第七扛冬奥大旗" [New Star Emerges in Chinese Women's Ski Jumping, Secures Seventh Place in World Cup and Carries the Flag for the Winter Olympics]. China Sports Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-01-16 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "她就是刘奇，2013跳台滑雪世界杯挪威站第7名得主，创造了中国选手在这个项目上国际比赛的最好成绩。成为继马彤之后，中国跳台滑雪的又一个希望之星。刘奇1996年2月27日出生，来自吉林，今年才刚满17岁。在去年的冬运会女子个人标准台的比赛中，她获得铜牌后表示要向马彤学习，然而短短的一年后，她就扛起了这个项目的大旗。... 虽然进步迅速，但是由于中国跳台滑雪项目起点低，刘奇与世界高手水平还有很大差距，同时她的表现也存在起伏。今年2月举行的最重要的世锦赛比赛，在总共43名选手中，她排名第40。"

      From Google Translate: "She is Liu Qi, the 7th place winner of the 2013 Ski Jumping World Cup in Norway, creating the best international result for Chinese athletes in this event. She has become another rising star of Chinese ski jumping after Ma Tong. Liu Qi was born on 27 February 27 1996 in Jilin, and just turned 17 this year. In last year's Winter Games women's individual standard platform competition, she won the bronze medal and said she wanted to learn from Ma Tong. However, just one year later, she took up the banner of this event. ... Although she has made rapid progress, due to the low starting point of China's ski jumping project, Liu Qi still has a big gap with the world's top players, and her performance has also fluctuated. In the most important World Championships held in February this year, she ranked 40th out of a total of 43 athletes."

    2. Wang, Zhengcun 王正坤 (2012-01-05). "吉林选手刘奇小姑娘有大梦想 剑指冬奥会领奖台" [Jilin Athlete Liu Qi, a Young Girl with Big Dreams, Aims for the Winter Olympic Podium]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-01-16 – via Sohu.

      The article notes: "说此话者乃是本届冬运会首个项目跳台滑雪女子个人标准台的铜牌得主、年仅16岁的吉林选手刘奇。此言一出，让人顿时觉得面前的这个小姑娘虽然个头不高，却颇为懂事。如今，懂事的年轻人很多，又懂事又会跳台滑雪的就屈指可数了。像刘奇一样小小年纪便知道要分担家庭负担的运动员，实属难得。不难想到，小姑娘说要改善家里的条件，实在是因为家里的情况不甚理想。“妈妈得了心脏病，爸爸是开货车的，考虑到家里的情况，妈妈的病只能通过在家里打针来治疗，”刘奇说，“我现在能做到的，就是不给他们增添负担。” 其实，除报答父母之外，刘奇还有更大的梦想：登上冬奥会的领奖台。刘奇从11岁便开始练习跳台滑雪，"

      From Google Translate: "The person who said this is Liu Qi, a 16-year-old athlete from Jilin, who won the bronze medal in the women's individual ski jumping, the first event of this Winter Games. As soon as these words came out, people immediately felt that the little girl in front of them was quite sensible, although she was not tall. Nowadays, there are many sensible young people, but there are only a handful of those who are both sensible and can ski jump. It is rare to find an athlete like Liu Qi who knows that he has to share the burden of the family at a young age. It is not difficult to imagine that the little girl said she wanted to improve the conditions at home because the family situation was not ideal. "My mother has heart disease and my father drives a truck. Considering the situation at home, my mother's illness can only be treated by injections at home," Liu Qi said, "What I can do now is not to add burden to them." In fact, in addition to repaying his parents, Liu Qi has a bigger dream: to stand on the podium of the Winter Olympics. Liu Qi started practicing ski jumping at the age of 11."

    3. Zhang, Kuan (2024-03-15). "雪上争锋展风采 奋勇拼搏创佳绩 ——我省运动员备战征战"十四冬"背后的故事" [Competing on Snow, Displaying Talent; Striving Hard to Achieve Great Results — The Stories Behind Our Athletes' Preparation and Battle at the '14th Winter Games']. Jilin Daily [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-01-16.

      The article notes: "从退役，到复出，再到勇夺三金，年近30岁的省雪上运动管理中心跳台滑雪运动员刘奇的经历可谓跌宕起伏。刘奇的跳台滑雪之路已经走了18年，2012年入选国家跳台滑雪队，并在2013年世界杯跳出第7名的好成绩，2017年刘奇遭遇脚踝受伤、手术失败，遗憾地选择了退役。谈及当年退役，刘奇一直心有不甘，她告诉记者：“我始终割舍不了这份情感，放不下这项运动，经常梦回训练场，渴望自己能够站上冠军领奖台。2019年，我决定复出，继续追逐金牌梦。” “在‘十四冬’备战期间，刘奇多次因伤痛无法完成高难度动作，省雪上中心选派省内知名医生跟队为她治疗，对她踝关节进行了手术，并重新制定康复方案和训练计划。在各方的有力保障下，刘奇的伤情得到了快速恢复，训练也得到了延续，更重要的是刘奇恢复了信心。可喜的是刘奇不负众望，夺得个人女子成年组全部金牌。”刘奇的教练员王建勋说。"

      From Google Translate: "From retirement to comeback, and then to winning three gold medals, the experience of Liu Qi, a ski jumper from the Provincial Snow Sports Management Center, who is nearly 30 years old, can be described as ups and downs. Liu Qi has been on the road of ski jumping for 18 years. In 2012, he was selected for the national ski jumping team and jumped out of the 7th place in the 2013 World Cup. In 2017, Liu Qi suffered an ankle injury and failed surgery, and regretfully chose to retire. Talking about her retirement, Liu Qi was unwilling to give up. She told reporters: "I can't let go of this emotion and this sport. I often dream of returning to the training ground, eager to stand on the championship podium. In 2019, I decided to come back and continue to pursue the dream of a gold medal." "During the preparations for the 14th Winter Games, Liu Qi was unable to complete difficult movements due to injuries many times. The Provincial Snow Center selected well-known doctors in the province to follow the team to treat her, performed surgery on her ankle joint, and re-formulated rehabilitation and training plans. With the strong support of all parties, Liu Qi's injuries recovered quickly, training continued, and more importantly, Liu Qi regained her confidence. Fortunately, Liu Qi lived up to expectations and won all the gold medals in the women's adult group." Liu Qi's coach Wang Jianxun said."

    4. Guo, Ling 郭玲 (2016-01-11). "刘奇摘铜夺得十三冬新疆首枚奖牌" [Liu Qi Wins Bronze, Securing Xinjiang's First Medal at the 13th Winter Games]. 亚心网 [Yaxin] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-01-16 – via Phoenix Television.

      The article notes: "1月10日，第十三届全国冬运会最先进行的跳台滑雪项目在黑龙江省亚布力体育训练基地结束了全部比赛。代表乌鲁木齐市的刘奇以91分夺得女子K90米个人比赛铜牌，这也是新疆首枚十三冬奖牌。刘奇以91.0分收获一枚铜牌，这个结果，与刘奇的教练柴明发赛前的预计相吻合，不过刘奇本人对这个成绩却不是很满意。她说，与第十二届冬运会一样也是第三名，不是特别满意，没有发挥出理想水平。"

      From Google Translate: "On 10 January, the ski jumping event, the first event of the 13th National Winter Games, ended all the competitions at the Yabuli Sports Training Base in Heilongjiang Province. Liu Qi, representing Urumqi, won the bronze medal in the women's K90m individual competition with 91 points, which was also Xinjiang's first medal in the 13th Winter Games. Liu Qi won a bronze medal with 91.0 points, which was consistent with the prediction of Liu Qi's coach Chai Mingfa before the game, but Liu Qi herself was not very satisfied with the result. She said that she was also third in the 12th Winter Games, which was not particularly satisfactory and did not perform at her ideal level."

    5. Less significant coverage:
      1. Deng, Fangjia 邓方佳 (2023-02-24). "刘奇创造跳台滑雪世锦赛女子个人标准台历史最好成绩" [Liu Qi Sets the Best Ever Result in Women's Individual Normal Hill at Ski Jumping World Championships]. Beijing Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-16. Retrieved 2025-01-16.

        The article notes: "北京时间2月24日凌晨，正在斯洛文尼亚进行的2023年北欧式滑雪世锦赛结束了跳台滑雪女子个人标准台的比赛，中国选手刘奇以205.3分的成绩获得第24名，创造了中国选手在世锦赛该项目上的历史最好成绩"

        From Google Translate: "In the early morning of February 24, Beijing time, the 2023 Nordic Skiing World Championships in Slovenia ended the women's individual standard platform competition. Chinese athlete Liu Qi won the 24th place with 205.3 points, creating the best record of Chinese athletes in the history of this event in the World Championships."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Qi (simplified Chinese: 刘奇; traditional Chinese: 劉奇 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bisk Farm

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

All of the sources appear to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA 🄻🄰 14:31, 7 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! 08:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no significant coverage. Drushrush (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual political analysis

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

AFD as the article has been draftified before and PROD can be contested. The subject of the article is a concept. The concept itself is well covered in the book, but there are not enough independent sources that refer to this concept. The references include Max Weber's Political Thought, but it is not clear whether the concept of "contextual political analysis" is presented there as well or not.

In short, the concept is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 7 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! 08:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:TNT. I think contextual political analysis is probably a notable enough concept/approach to merit an article in theory, although I think it would be a tricky one to write. But this is clearly an AI-generated essay that would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. MCE89 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Lietuva

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to the Nordea page Cinder painter (talk) 10:57, 7 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! 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bop House

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

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 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! 08:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. The consensus seems to be that this is eligible as a CSD G12. An editor can create a Redirect from this page title. Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nom Krouk

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

I've declined a G11 request on this—it clearly isn't spam—but in its current state this is so unsalvageable, it would require a scorched-earth rewrite from scratch if it were to be a viable Wikipedia article.  ‑ Iridescent 07:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm willing to do said scorched earth. TansoShoshen (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still has more work to be done, but now it's way better than before. TansoShoshen (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Verlag Anton Saurwein

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 7 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! 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. I also couldn't find any significant coverage, or really much coverage of any kind in reliable sources. It's a bit strange since I would expect a publisher of academic material to be notable, but I don't see how the article's subject passes WP:GNG. Maybe it's just hard to find sources in Google when most of the search results are works published by the company. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The publisher's only outputs seem to be a journal that doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALS and a series of academic monographs that probably don't meet WP:NBOOK. If either of their publications were notable there might be an argument to keep and rename, but I don't think that's an option here. And agree that I'm not seeing any sign that they could meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Snoop Dogg#Discography. as an ATD. If anyone thinks this Redirect is unsuitable, please change it to a more appropriate article. Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Counter (Snoop Doggy Dogg album)

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

There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage by reliable/independent sources for this album. Redirecting might not be appropriate as it's not mentioned in another article. Frost 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. orphan article, not much reliable sources found. brachy08 (chat here lol) 06:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the writer of the article, I can agree that it may not be notable, since it was lost media until 2004, and not many people even knew about the album until way after Snoop Dogg's fame. I would say delete or leave as a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources due to the obscurity of the tape is also a problem. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Drescher

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's another article about her in the same publication as above [60] which is about her junior career again. She appears to be mentioned on here [61] but it appears to only be a ciouple of lines. I have found lots of passing mentions ( such as [62] ) but no WP:SIGCOV so leaning towards Delete unless someone else can find something better.Canary757 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Gülke

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a Keep vote and this article has already been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug02 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ all. The arguments for retention were rebutted as meritless; "easier to view results" is not a valid justification for a content fork. Similarly, arguments for merging with the respective provincial election article was dismissed, seeing as all the content is already there. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election

[edit]
Results of the 2023 Alberta general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2024 British Columbia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2024 New Brunswick general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2021 Nova Scotia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Results of the 2024 Nova Scotia general election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content forks of unclear necessity. The standard format for Canadian provincial election results is to include the final vote counts in the unified "candidates" tables within the main election article first, and then consider moving that table to a new separate "results" page only if article-size considerations demand that. That is, separate results pages do not always have to exist across the board separately from the main election article: that's a size control option, not a standard requirement. And when a separate results page does exist it's supposed to do so instead of the candidates table being present in the main election article, not alongside that, and it's supposed to consist of the candidates table being moved from the main election article so that the separate page looks like this.
But that's not what's happening here: all of these pages exist alongside, not instead of, the candidates tables still being present in the main election articles, and all of them are transcluding individual "district results" templates instead of using the unified table like they're supposed to.
Additionally, it warrants note that these were all created within the past month by a (non-Canadian, as far as I know) editor who doesn't really contribute on Canadian politics on a regular, ongoing basis, and instead tends to jump in only on election nights to create a hashpile of improperly formatted stubs about the newly elected legislators, which other people inevitably end up having to repair after the fact -- just in October's New Brunswick election alone, I and another editor both had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong, and at least in my case it wasn't the first time I had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong.
Again, it's an either/or choice between including the candidates table in the main article without a separate results page, or moving the candidates table to a separate results page instead of being in the main article. There's simply no prior precedent or need to duplicate the same information in two different places, and no election ever needs both a candidates table in the main article and a separate results page. It's one or the other, not both, and either way it needs to be formatted via the unified table, not via the transclusion of 50-70 individual district results templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to arbitrarily decree that all of the hundreds of Canadian election articles that are doing things the way I described are doing it wrong, or arbitrarily impose a new way of doing them — you would need to establish a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada that the old way is a problem and that your way fixes it.
The tables are not "difficult" to read in any way, and the templates do not make it "easier". The tables, in fact, offer necessary information that your templates completely fail to provide. Since the tables group districts regionally, for example, it's possible to view variations in regional support — was one party significantly more or less popular in one region than it was in another, etc. — that a strictly alphabetical list fails to reveal. And since the tables have an incumbent column, they offer a way to track whether each incumbent was reelected, defeated or just didn't run again at all, which using the individual riding results templates fails to achieve.
Both of those are necessary information in a compendium of election results, which the existing format fulfills and your new variant format does not. So you would need a consensus that the long-established standard way of doing election results — either in the main article without having a separate results page to repeat the same results, or moving the table to a standalone results page without keeping duplicate data in the main article at all anymore — needs to be changed, and are not entitled to arbitrarily decree that yourself. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's worth noting that Ontario has a separate page potentially as it the largest province with 124 seats in their legislature, and there would be article size related constraints to not doing so. Similar to how federal elections in Canada have their own distinct results page see Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding for the 2021 Canadian federal election. Can also be said, that both the Ontario page which is mentioned and the fed. election page follow a different design than the articles in this nomination.
        Given that results in both prov. and fed. elections in Canada vary tremendously by region of a province - or the country - i would make that case that regional groupings (of alphabetical constituencies) for election results makes considerable more sense than alphabetical across the whole province. But I would say that this is a conversation for a different forum other than AfD. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't mind that these articles exist, but I do agree with Bearcat that it's nice to have the ridings ordered by region and having an incumbent column, which these articles lack. Though, I do see why having the ridings ordered alphabetically would be useful as well. But, I'm not sure if just having a bunch of result templates by riding is all that useful other than to show the results by riding, alphabetically. They don't show the incumbents, and don't really let the reader compare the results with other ridings like a sortable list might accomplish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles mentioned in original nom. Articles are redundant (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) to the main page for each election, and don't provide any new valuable information that couldn't be found on each respective constituency/elected officeholder page. Using Ontario as an example doesn't make sense as it's the largest provinces, which may require a stand-alone article - not due to notability or ease - but due to overall article size - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These would be valid forks if they needed to be (if the election article was long enough), but I agree as currently written they are duplicative, though they do present information in a slightly different format, so I don't think they're redundant. At the end of the day though we only need the results sorted one way. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe at some point there will need to be a discussion about statistics and table use in Canadian election articles. Essentially, statistical information is repeated (i.e., Three results tables) and reorganized several times (i.e., below this) in Canadian election articles while there is limited substantive encyclopedic content about the election itself. However, addressing this issue, there appears to be three methods to display the statistical results of Canadian elections, they each convey slightly different information in a different manner.
1. Candidate Table: generally a table organized on the axis of electoral district (x) and political party (y) that provides the name of each candidate, as well as the incumbent (if present). Some include the number of votes and percentage of total votes each candidate received. BC 2001 Name and Votes Example, AB 1909 Name, Vote and %. As a note, I have created several of these in the past, but other users have also created these tables.
2. Statistical Table: tables created by @Raellerby that provide statistical information regarding the number of votes and party choice of each electoral district. BC 2001 Statistical Table Example.
3. CanElec Template Lists: tables created by @Moondragon21 that incorporates the individual electoral district's CanElec result template for each district in the election. Note, this is the standard used for pages for individual electoral districts when displaying historical election results.
Personally, it is my opinion that only one of the Candidate Table and Statistical Tables should be the primary method of displaying election results in the article. The Candidate Table effectively lists each candidate that participated in the election, which is desirable because notable individuals may stand in an election but not be elected. The Statistical Table effectively lists important information about vote counts, pluralities, and other similar information in a sortable manner. It is my opinion that only one should appear on the main article because these articles are becoming too long to meaningfully navigate. A results page would take a vast majority of this other statistical content out of the main article (Example almost everything below this). However, shorter provincial election pages may be able to fit both Candidate Table and Statistical Tables on the main article. Once there is sufficient encyclopedic content on a provincial election page, then a specific results page can be created. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Caddyshack01 has summarized the situation and issues succinctly. I created the Statistical Tables to better align Canadian election articles with those for the UK parliamentary elections, and they have turned out to be much more revealing compared to the Candidate Tables.Raellerby (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the results by candidate already in the main election articles. We need either that or these, not both. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centerbase

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

No indication of NCORP or SIGCOV, the references are mostly press releases or other non RSes. I couldn't find much on a BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Avayalik Islands. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avayalik

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

This needs to be redirected to Avayalik Islands, but I think that's a form of soft deletion and am so nominating it. Avayalik-1 is a Dorset archaeological site on the Avayalik Islands. The islands article has some cited content about the site, and the islands are notable primarily for their artifacts. This article seems to be about Avayalik-1, but written before dating established the site as Dorset. It should be redirected rather than deleted, because it's a plausible search term. Rjjiii (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection to Avayalik Islands
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I am unimpressed by the Keep !votes from the inexperienced (canvassed?) participants. Those more familiar with our guidelines (and unaffiliated with its subject) unanimously argued for deletion. Owen× ☎ 14:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, see previous relisting comment. I'd like to hear evaluations from some more experienced AFD regulars. Also, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the opening paragraph implies that the article is about a web scraping platform, in reality the article is devoted to the company. On that basis I've evaluated the sourcing according to whether it establishes notability of the company. The criteria established by the guidelines requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sourcing meets the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments referring to the above list of 13 URLs are not persuasive. As for the URLs:
    1. [66] – no significant coverage
    2. [67] – SIGCOV about the company, but not about the product. The website offers paid articles, with no mention of them being indicated as such.
    3. [68] – no coverage on the product, very little relevant coverage on the company (most of the information is routine)
    4. [69] – no SIGCOV
    5. [70] – an interview; therefore the source is neither secondary nor independent
    6. [71] – has SIGCOV, but seems to be a paid article
    7. [72] – mostly routine coverage
    8. [73] – an interview with an employee
    9. [74] – has some good coverage about the product
    10. [75] – an interview with one of the founders
    11. [76] – no SIGCOV
    12. [77] – paywalled
    13. [78] – no SIGCOV
Overall, these sources provide no sustained significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nakamura (footballer, born 1989)

[edit]
Ryo Nakamura (footballer, born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Light years away from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but merge with corrections — this article seems like a duplication of the already-existing Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) and hence a merge into the existing article may be more appropriate, once the errors have been corrected. It seems like the author of the article has made a spelling error, instead of “Reo” (the correct first name) they have put “Ryo” as the name of the subject and (for some reason) changed their DoB from 1990 to 1989.
The article's own source shows the name of the subject as “Reo”, not “Ryo” (as the author has put) and the correct DoB of the subject as 1990, not 1989 (as the author has put). The reason the others (CC: @GiantSnowman, @CommunityNotesContributor, @QEnigma) could not verify/find sources was because the author wrote the incorrect information on the Wikipedia article. The career statistics section, especially, I feel could be merged into the already existing article.
~~~~ Nyxion303💬 Talk 19:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted - but where is the significant coverage of this person? GiantSnowman 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Reo Nakamura (correct name), I was able to find some through this Google search and this one — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 just to name a few.
At the moment, it appears the player plays for Ezra F.C., in the Pepsi Lao League 1.
~~~~ Nyxion303💬 Talk 19:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your sources consist of match reports, database profiles and primary sources. Nothing come close to significant and independent coverage of the player. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, would you say the player qualifies as being notable under WP:FOOTYN? Nyxion303💬 Talk 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and has no relevance in AfD's. The subject must pass WP:GNG with multiple significant sources from publications independent of the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports)". GiantSnowman 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte: Of the seven sources, only the fifth one signals significant coverage on Nakamura as it tells about his personal life. However, one SIGCOV is not enough; the whole GNG needs multiple instead. Transfermarkt is obviously unnecessary to be added to Wikipedia articles as it is claimed unreliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there are still any valid arguments to Keep or Merge with another article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look likely as Reo Nakamura is currently at a 5-0 delete Geschichte (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep 5-1 surely? With @Nyxion303‘s keep vote, and 5-2 now… not that this is meant to be a vote I thought 😊 Anyway, as you pointed out @Geschichte, the fifth of Nyxion’s sources was SIGCOV, and I have another couple to add. this[79] and this[80]. For me the three taken together seem like enough. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTAVOTE. GiantSnowman 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that was rather my point. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Absurdum4242 and Nyxion303. I once again request that those nominating and voting delete on Japanese-language articles show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes sources in Japanese and competence to evaluate them before doing so as that clearly indicates that there is significant coverage.
DCsansei (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you reference this significant coverage you talk of please? CNC (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the recent !votes are keep, but we've got an almost unanimous delete out of the other AfD. Can we get a source table or something?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Article does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the coverage does not show a passing of GNG. AFC is two trivial mentions in a match report on a football federation website. Transfermarkt is a database source and an unreliable one at that. Football Tribe is another trivial mention. BeSoccer is another database. Indosport has some coverage but it references Transfermarkt and doesn't go anywhere beyond confirming his position, age, place of birth and previous club. That is all information that was just pulled from Soccerway and the unreliable Transfermarkt. Lao FF is blatantly not significant coverage. IDN Times is half-decent but doesn't go much beyond confirming his position, previous clubs and saying that he scored 2 goals against Tuloy. Soccer King trivially mentions him as a Japanese player in Myanmar. I've searched in Japanese but he has spent most of his career outside of Japan so I can't really find anything. I can find coverage like Ultra Soccer but this is clearly a different Ryo Nakamura as his age and place of birth doesn't match. This should be moved to Ryo Nakamura if kept. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 11:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Perdita Generacio

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

Per WP:Fancruft. This band does not seem to have received sufficient coverage outside of the Esperanto subculture. The only reference that is not in Esperanto is no longer retrievable. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline

[edit]
2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obscure chemical that I can only find two primary sources for in PubMed,[81][82] both of which are from the 1970s. Google search yields the two aforementioned sources, chemical databases, and Wikipedia. It's an anti-poliovirus drug but obviously doesn't have widespread use for that since polio is near eradication. It's also for herpes but doesn't seem to have any real-world usage in practice since other antivirals are used for that and there would be a lot more written about it if it were used. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those three are all primary sources from the 1980s and for two of them I can't verify the information. Aren't secondary sources required for biomedical topics to be considered notable? WP:MEDRS is relevant here. Plus, we're talking about something that seemingly has <10 sources, all primary, all from 40+ years ago. Ribavirin's search results on PubMed for comparison.[83] What makes 2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline notable? Velayinosu (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Tamralipta. Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamluk Royal Family

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

Fails WP:GNG. See Draft:Tamluk Royal Family; draft was repeatedly declined and then finally rejected for notability reasons before being recreated in article space regardless. As far as I can tell -- and I used Google Translate to search the cited Bengali sources for mentions of the word Tamluk in addition to checking Google Books for English sources -- none of the available secondary sources pass WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir check "Mahisya" word too..and it will pass..I have checked..I think we need bengali editors for it... KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family%20mahishya KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KhasEkadashTili: Please read WP:Notability, especially the section on significant coverage. It is not enough if a source only mentions the subject. The source needs to spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail, and as far as I can tell all of the books on Google Books only mention the Tamluk royal family once or twice. If you can show a chapter of a book that is about the Tamluk royal family or a news article written about their history or something they have done, that might show that the subject is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I shall show 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Gupta_Empire/uYXDB2gIYbwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=tamluk+royal+family&pg=PA139&printsec=frontcover from 139 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RmIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA64&dq=tamluk%20royal%20family&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjHrrmGw-aKAxV1VmwGHVrxCogQ6AF6BAgGEAM&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR13h8c4kgWqat_gafWeAFXhuey6d55hz8jVOeo_8yNe4pl546FZaDrW9ls_aem_DBnlnbChSJtaPQ9v0D0VAw#v=onepage&q=tamluk%20royal%20family&f=false KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this Book there is a whole chapter for this royal family..it is in bengali + there is mention of tamluk royal family throughout the book :-- https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.303693/page/n9/mode/2up KhasEkadashTili (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/ government document
https://www.news18.com/news/india/ahead-of-bengal-municipal-polls-royal-descendant-dipendra-narayan-roy-visits-voters-4771787.html 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/A_Statistical_Account_of_Bengal/HNgMAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 page 62 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family this book is about tamluk and it has mentioned tamluk royal family multiple times 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/district-reopsitory-detail.htm?26147 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir I have added sources...check it!! KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/my-kolkata/places/tamluk-a-port-city-as-old-as-the-mahabharata-yet-lost-in-history/cid/2028906 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
here is a source
[84]https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHrhzZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHViXs5fyoJfVjCNxj4Czqq84XtauVUIKkwIVAQO5bDaMbxNzzoShG0o-iA_aem_325afzFF-Rf6zefgYRUqrQ Hamir samanta (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sir here another source page 213
[85]https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DT-i9HWMeNYC&q=tamluk+raja+mahishya&dq=tamluk+raja+mahishya&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju9vuuyeaKAxXfUGwGHWZeJSg4FBDoAXoECAsQAw&fbclid=IwY2xjawHri8tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfwn9WHh0I78VyYVxEq0xu0XwuobnW2CkYMQ8_IGFsjzvMnAZyYDb2GLXw_aem_NpwPv57BqK4RYFDVwYaoHw#tamluk%20raja%20mahishya Hamir samanta (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hamir samanta @KhasEkadashTili: The sources you've listed here go into detail on Tamluk the town, but none of them (that I can read) have more than one sentence about the royal family. I'll see if someone else can check the Bengali sources, but please try to look for sources that provide significant detail about the royal family, not just about the town or the ruined palace. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion here. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Reposted discussion thread here. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is very far from a consensus right now and that hasn't been helped by sockpuppetry and iffy sources offered. So, I'm relisting this to get more feedback and, if editors are considering a Merge or Redirection, please offer ONE target article. If you want to rename this article, you'll need to argue to Keep it and then a rename can be considered. AFDs do not close as a rename as that's an editing decision, not a deletion decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I don't think I've run into this situation before at AFD, the article creator is seeking deletion and other editors are arguing to Keep it. Given the article improvements since its nomination, I'm closing this as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist League of Turkey

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

I started this earlier today, but was informed that translations via Google Translate usually aren't acceptable. The reason I'm AfDing it is because looking back over it, I don't see WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG being met, and didn't actually check notability prior to translation from Turkish German, which I think has different notability standards. EF5 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - TİKB was definitely notable in its heydays. See for example [95] which affirms that 51 members of the organization were imprisoned, prosecutors asked for death penalty for 31 of its members. Apart from coverage in Turkish press on TİKB attacks, there would also be coverage on the trials and prison hunger strikes. --Soman (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Gutierrez

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

Page on an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leans towards keep but lets relist for a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Reckoning (upcoming film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and also is WP:TOOSOON. Content was previously draftified but author returned it to mainspace without meaningful improvements to address previously noted notability concerns. Snowycats (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

70 Newark-Livingston/Florham Park

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). JTtheOG (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). Liz Read! Talk! 03:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

40 Kearny-Jersey Gardens

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Moldovan Youth League

[edit]
2024–25 Moldovan Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals' Academy of Commerce

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

Non-notable accounting school, ref 1 is a database entry, ref 2/3 is a primary ref, and ref 3 is a press release. Fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge

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

Article relies entirely on the publication itself to source the information. No hits in google scholar, and nothing viewable in google books with WP:SIGCOV although there were hits without viewable pages and a few non-notable hits. With zero secondary sources on this book, it fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. Hits in a search is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Those could all be passing mentions, or even advertisements for the book paid for by the publisher. I also don't have access to newspapers.com. If you find anything containing WP:SIGCOV in those sources by all means share it here or better yet add them to the article.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those books where there's almost certainly SIGCOV somewhere but it's cited so often it's a nightmare to find. Nevertheless, after a search: there is an entry with sigcov in multiple books on "The Best Reference Books" [96] [97] (with different content). Also this newspaper review [98]. Willing to bet there is far far more, but there are as mentioned above 3000+ (!) mentions of it. Searching will likely be a pain, because this book is cited constantly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PARAKANYAA Thanks for these. We can only count The Best Reference Books as one source as they are the same publication even if the content is different. I'll take your word on the newspapers.com source. Please add these if you are able as the article currently only cites the book itself. We just need one more good review from a different publication (to satisfy the rule of three) and I think WP:NBOOK/WP:SIGCOV would be met and I'll happily withdraw at that point. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I clipped the source noted above by PARAKANYAA. Here are some others [99][100][101][102] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the standard reference work on the game, and I'm sure there must be plenty of references to it to be found in bridge books and magazines. I'll see what I can find. Meanwhile putting in some cn tags might be a better approach than over-hasty deletion. JH (talk page) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jhall1 This is a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument which is a discredited argument at AFD. We require the production of specific evidence. If there are sources, produce them.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said I would, I've been searching, and have found a few sources which I will be adding to the article. My first thought was to look in the New York Times, as one of the few newspapers that has a freely available, online archive. I found four references, but then I realised that three of them were from the long period when Alan Truscott wrote their bridge columns and, as an editor of the OEoB, I suppose his comments on it aren't allowable. I do have a few other sources to include, though. JH (talk page) 08:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added four independent citations to the article. I wasn't sure where best to put them in the article, so please feel free to move them. The first two are lifted from List of contract bridge books. Unfortunately since the ABTA citation was added to that article, the cited document has become only available to ABTA members, and I wasn't prepared to shell out $75 to join, so I've had to resort to the Wayback Machine. And the citation given for the ACBL survey was rather lacking in details, so I had to invent a title to stop the "cite journal" template throwing up an error. (Incidentally quite a few of the pre-existing citations throw up warnings or errors.) I'm assuming that those who have come up with further citations will add them themselves. JH (talk page) 19:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (first edition, 1964) is referenced in the bibliography by Bourke and Sugden on page 145 as follows:

A massive work that is an essential reference for any Bridge player. The work derives some of its structure from both the The Whist Reference Book by William Mill Butler, and Ely Culbertson's, The Encyclopedia of Bridge. A wonderful work from any angle. The updates have been relatively timely. The decision to have a separate section on biographies and tournaments, taken by Tom Smith, was a good one. The sixth edition has a comprehensive bibliography prepared by Tim Bourke.

— per Bourke, Tim; Sugden, John (2010). Bridge Books in English from 1886-2010: an annotated bibliography. Cheltenham, England: Bridge Book Buffs. ISBN 978-0-9566576-0-2.
 Newwhist (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Western Bulldogs players. Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Howlett

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find notable sources other than stats pages. The pages that link to it also don't provide good sources. Heart (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Delete per nom. Helleniac (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim feminist views on hijab

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

This article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of sections of Muslim feminism and does not meet WP:GNG; most sources in the article do not mention feminism/Muslim feminism at all. Helleniac (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leýla Kuliýeva

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

Fails notability, her achievements as athlete are not much and as an official her position is not something special to make attention. no much coverage about her in general. Sports2021 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kemer Cup

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

Tagged for a year as unsourced and when I click the external link it blocks me Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Helleniac (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Lakson Group. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Express Entertainment

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

I had originally removed the programming section but restored for this AfD. The references fall well-short of WP:ORGCRIT. There are sources that verify shows but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH which is required to show notability for companies. CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a very good recommendation as an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regada Festival

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

Local sources only found. — Moriwen (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.E. Saint John Memorial Stadium

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

Not notable; local sources only — Moriwen (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_January_14&oldid=1270971472"