User:Snotbot/AfD's requiring attention

The page is now updated at User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention. Please change links accordingly. You can still see the table below.

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 04:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Ximena Caminos	21 days ago	2	6267	1778.75
Living Textbook of Hand Surgery	22 days ago	4	10440	1743.77
Katherina Roshana	18 days ago	2	4954	1552.88
Cloud engineering (2nd nomination)	18 days ago	2	5748	1529.47
NCAA Division II football win–loss records	19 days ago	4	18263	1491.68
International Discworld Convention	18 days ago	3	13099	1485.05
Man, It's So Loud in Here	15 days ago	1	4347	1456.94
George de Meo	17 days ago	2	6333	1453.32
(She Was A) Hotel Detective	15 days ago	1	5307	1435.91
Maddelynn Hatter	18 days ago	4	8239	1427.33
Sven Pichal	17 days ago	4	7707	1377.17
KDK Softwares	15 days ago	2	8521	1366.12
Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head	15 days ago	3	4865	1306.58
Institute for Educational Advancement	15 days ago	3	6079	1298.46
Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program	12 days ago	1	3131	1276.44
IdeaForge	12 days ago	1	3113	1269.73
Silex Microsystems	15 days ago	3	5757	1267.55
Star Academies	12 days ago	1	3440	1259.09
Chief Minister's Cup 2024	14 days ago	3	6086	1245.6
Beyblade X season 1	14 days ago	4	6057	1198.83
Manop Leeprasansakul	13 days ago	2	4449	1189.22
OGA Golf Course	11 days ago	0	12037	1187.68
Flash Fiber	11 days ago	1	3925	1187.03
Stefan Swanepoel	11 days ago	1	3421	1142.45
San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships	12 days ago	2	4665	1139.11

Ximena Caminos

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

Following brief discussion on the talk page, in which an editor drafted a new version of the article, it makes more sense to delete this article and for active contributors to create something in draftspace in due course. In its current form, it resembles a CV or promotional piece more than an encyclopedia article. The subject is mentioned in reliable sources but, again, too promotional to establish notability. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - There is nothing in the body of this stubbed-down version of the article that establishes general notability because there is nothing in the remaining text that refers to significant coverage. It has not been necessary to check the sources, because there is nothing that needs to be verified. There is also a draft. I have not yet reviewed the draft, but it seems better to delete this stub first and deal with the draft in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been some recent additions to this article that need to be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The coverage I can find of her in independent sources rises to level of multiple examples of significant coverage imo:

Guardian article^[1] which is mostly about her Reef Line project but she is quoted throughout

NYT Q&A^[2] with her which is quite detailed

Vogue piece^[3] is about her *and* her (ex?)husband, but it could be argued sigcov.

NYT mention^[4] also about Reef Line, she + her project has a two paragraph write-up

InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment I have consolidated the references in the article (combining duplicates, replacing dead urls or non-existent archive urls with live urls). I see there are other references in an earlier version of this article [1], which may provide more coverage - and there is also a draft article about this person Draft:Ximena Caminos which also has some other sources. Very confusing - I will try to assess all the sources to determine if she meets WP:GNG, and include relevant sources if she does. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep – Per InsomniaOpossum sources analysis. Svartner (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

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

I cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Could be one choice because ZB MEB is host of Living Textbook of Hand Surgery, but dosn't contribute to the content of this peer reviewed "platform". Woller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
1. Keep and modify if necessary Woller (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not a book as usuual - Living Textbook of Hand Surgery is work in progress as a peer reviewed platform teaching hand surgery using text and videos for surgical techniques. Maybee category "book" is misleading. Woller (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't pass the GNG either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: including a potential merger target, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking into WP refs you can find several citations of "Living Textbook of Hand Surgery". The online-Textbook is work in progress, so with coming chapters more and more citations are to be expected. Really "zero secondary coverage"? Woller (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Citations are not secondary coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What about a different category for "Living Textbook of Hand Surgery"? It could easily be categorized to "Open educational resources", better fitting for the item we discuss here. I already said it's not a book printed on paper, so relevance criteria for "old fashioned" books can not be applied to this product. Woller (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Woller And I said already that even if we don't count it as a book, it doesn't pass our other standards either. People have to have written about it. For us to categorize it it has to be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: This is honestly a pretty difficult topic to judge notability on because it doesn't really fit any one given area. It's a website, but it's more like a book or academic journal. As such, this suffers from some of the same issues that an academic would when it comes to establishing notability because well, academic resources like this are far less likely to receive the typical types of coverage that say, a Stephen King book or non-academic website might. I do think that there's some merit in looking at the citations, as this could help establish that the resource has made a significant contribution to the sciences - we do somewhat the same when it comes to academics. However at the same time, we would still need some sort of prose accompanying those citations to show that the site has been viewed as particularly influential or important. Since it's not a person, we won't really have a h-index to rely on. I guess my point is that this is going to be tough to judge since it's not like your typical website and this doesn't really fit into either NACADEMIC (as it's not a person) or NBOOK (technically not a book). JOURNALCRIT comes the closest to potentially covering this, but it's an essay and not an official guideline/policy. We really do need to have some sort of notability guideline for academic publications, however since that's not really my area of expertise (and I'm on here so irregularly) I'll let someone else handle raising that discussion again (as I know it's been raised before).

Of note, there does seem to be some coverage in German. I found a brief mention here, but it's in passing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

An alternative, if sourcing can't be found, is to redirect this to German_National_Library_of_Medicine#Open_access_publishing. This does seem like it should at least be mentioned somewhere. The GNLoM page does have a brief mention so that could suffice. As far as the other organization goes, it looks like it hosts the content but is not exactly responsible for the contents - at least not to the level that the GNLoM is, hence why I wouldn't redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

On a side note, I do think that we could expand that brief mention into a couple of sentences explaining the GNLoM's "living textbook" program and listing all five of the books they currently have. I might try to do that in a bit, as I can use a primary source for that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to German_National_Library_of_Medicine#Open_access_publishing. Searching for this was frustrating. Quite a few hits came up. Few of them were junk hits, however at the same time none of them were really anything I could use to firmly establish notability. A lot of them were either citations, brief mentions like this, or were in places Wikipedia wouldn't see as usable even if it was in-depth. I've expanded mention of this and the general program (Living Handbooks) in the above mentioned section to a couple of sentences, so this could redirect there. I have no objection to this redirecting with history, in case more sourcing becomes available, but it might be a while. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per ReaderofthePack. I wasn't able to dig up more sources either, and this is a convincing alternative I can get behind. (Also broadly agree with the comments on notability guidelines, but if others don't feel confident to start that discussion, I'm fairly sure I couldn't either!) Mlkj (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Katherina Roshana

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to have the lasting notability and is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this article's inclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson, Soft Deletion is not possible for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Question: There's an essay WP:NBEAUTY which states that winners of national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. There is a caveat on the page that it's an essay and not a policy or guideline. I think this should be clarified as if this is not a well-established guideline by consensus, I'd vote to delete this article because while there is coverage of the subject winning the pageant, it is a one event situation as noted by the previous two editors. If notability is conferred by winning a national level beauty pageant that qualifies the subject for one of the Big Four international beauty pageants, then I'd vote to keep. Nnev66 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: per one event. History6042😊 (Contact me) 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a very uncommon to non-existent discipline. It has been tagged for notability for many years, and just left. No attempt has been made to keep it current and encyclopedic, the main page cloud computing is far more current and useful. Best to remove, there is no useful information here we should be providing readers. This topic is really part of computer science & engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Ligaturama (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Cloud computing: I agree that this standalone article should not exist, as there is no need to maintain the same information in two separate places. However, a redirect seems like a pretty straightforward WP: ATD to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Dabify while the content is related to Cloud computing from the title alone I first suspected that this would about Cloud seeding. MKFI (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with @MKFI that a disambiguation is needed, as I too thought of cloud seeding at first. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. @MKFI and TurboSuperA+: by dabify, do you want this article to be kept but a disambiguation should be added?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

A comment for @MKFI and @TurboSuperA+, a disambiguation does not solve that the current page is a weak duplication of the better page Cloud computing. Please clarify. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I intended to replace the current article with a disambiguation page. MKFI (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That is true. Then I'd support merging the Cloud engineering page into Cloud computing, because of WP:COMMONNAME. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, these were replies to the user, not my overall argument. glman (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This feels like something which should be included in the encyclopaedia, but may not be notable enough for its own page. Maybe a merge would be best, but I don't really have any suggestion on what would be a good place to merge other than I don't really want to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The NCAA keeps track of this stuff. Conyo14 (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that means. SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Without going too deep into it, sports stats are more than likely better kept and up to date on the primary source than here. As for the merge target, I suppose List of NCAA Division II football programs could work? It might be overkill though. Conyo14 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
That's not true at all - we have plenty of primary sourced stats tables throughout this website, and it's kind of the point of Wikipedia. The only question is whether it's worth a standalone page. SportingFlyer T·C 05:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, IMO the issue with a merge would be that it would add so much length to another article it would lead to a proposal to spin it off. For example, adding this info to the list of d2 programs as suggested above would overwhelm that list. Concur with your most recent comment though. glman (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; we're yet to reach a consensus on whether this should be kept, deleted, or merged on elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDATABASE. Frank Anchor 17:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

International Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Relationship disclaimer: In the past I was the webmaster for the International Discworld Convention. The website is hosted on my servers so I still have an indirect connection to them.

Primary sources for the convention are:

https://2018.dwcon.org/
https://2020.dwcon.org/ redirects to - https://2022.dwcon.org/ because the convention had to be skipped that year because of COVID
https://2022.dwcon.org/
https://2024.dwcon.org/

Of course these aren't independent sources, so I understand they don't count :)

It's quite an important convention for fans of the Discworld series of books and other things related to Terry Pratchett. Terry used to attend the conventions until because of his illness the travel became too much for him. And of course the conventions are organised in agreement with the Pratchett estate.

What kind of secondary sources would be appropriate for an event like this? Sjmsteffann (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Would a story published in The Guardian like this one from Ian Stewart (mathematician) or this letter from Elizabeth Alway be helpful? Or a Reddit discussion? Are things like Fancyclopedia or Fanlore useful?

Willing to help make the article better, but careful because I used to be involved and I don't want to mess up or break rules :) Sjmsteffann (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sjmsteffann: WP:Self-published sources are usually not used in Wikipedia, because there is no supervising authority which ensures reliability. So Reddit and wikis (which I think Fancyclopedia and Fanlore are) are not helpful. The Guardian on the other hand is an accepted reliable source according to WP:Perennial sources. There is some qualification there for opinion pieces. So I assume these still contribute to notability, as a reliable source has decided to spend space on the topic, and such pieces just have to be used in accordance with WP:RSOPINION, but additional input would be welcome. Daranios (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't really count Ian Stewart as an independent source for Discworld, as he's one of the coauthors of the Science of Discworld subseries (with Terry Pratchett and Jack Cohen). Adam Sampson (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

~~Merge to Discworld, or possibly keep~~, depending on the discussion of sources above. The Hollywood Reporter article only briefly mentions the convention, but can have the same use in the Discworld article than it has in the web article: the convention verifies the importance of the fandom for this fictional universe. More importantly, Fans and Fandom, p. 186-187, which as far as I can tell is a personal overview over such things by a reporter and editor in just that field, has a page on the convention. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. The Discworld convention is still a premier event in the UK (which attracts attendants from across the Anglosphere), even though Terry passed away ten years ago. It is one...I think of five...current Discworld conventions (not including the North American one, which may or may not return). Terry Pratchett was once the best selling author in the UK (and routinely hit number one spot in the main North American charts) for a time. TP's works routinely pops up in The Best Lists. The legacy of the works is being continued with the production company Narrativia, which is currently adapting Terry's works to screen and telly, Good Omens being a recent large scale production, of this sort, and with books being released with the blessing of Narrativia. The Convention actually grew in the years after Terry’s passing and currently shows no sign of diminishing, it's the opposite, as such it is one of the largest, if not the largest (I don't know for sure) UK conventions of it's type based on a sole author's works.Halbared (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
@Halbared That would be sufficient to keep the article - if you could find RS saying so... (about the convention, because much of your post is about TP, and nobody is suggesting we delete his biography...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as written. It is plausible this could be rescued, but right now I don't see the sources in my BEFORE. Redirect is problematic; this is mentioned in Discworld and Terry Pratchett, but the mentions are trivial. All that said, I think Discworld fandom might warrant an article, and this could be mentioned there, but sadly, this does not exist. And what we have here is, currently, an entry on a likely non-notable fan organization that did not attract any serious, independent attention. Sorry, folks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, which can become a merge target for other NN topics. Even if GNG was met, it'd have to be a Gen Con or Origins level convention to escape NOPAGE considerations. Individual conventions are great... but they're better covered in fandom-appropriate articles. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Gen con means a general convention? What is 'origins' level con?Halbared (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Gen Con and Origins Game Fair. Sorry, not trying to be cryptic, those are long running, annual, named national/international-scope conventions. Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Ta. I can see they're big! 20k. The Discworld con is restricted to 1k so it doesn't change into a shopping centre type thing like Comic Con. I was looking at the List of fan conventions by date of founding, a lot of which don' exist any-more and have the same amount of information as this page, such as Gallifrey One (which is active), I see Dr Who has a fandom page, this may be a workable solution.Halbared (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename and expand to Discworld fandom, per Jclemens, and add in the content from Draft:The North American Discworld Convention. Brilliant solution, problem solved. BD2412 T 01:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I support this solution, and I think the above-mentioned Fans and Fandom may be helpful in expanding on the topic; the Hollywood Reporter article and Discworld and the Disciplines, p. 216, while both very brief, verify that fandom has been going strong as of 2015 and 2012, respectively, and could be used in an introductory sentence on the fandom more globally. Daranios (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Support the Rename and expand to Discworld fandom as per the great working solution above.Halbared (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We can't close an AFD as a rename. The article's title is an editing decision that has to be discussed by editors if this article is Kept. Should we interpret Rename "votes" as "Keep" votes?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep in order to rename and expand scope to Discworld fandom afterwards, as discussed above, which I think solves the problems and is a good way to present this. Daranios (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Man, It's So Loud in Here

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a suitable Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to They Might Be Giants – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

George de Meo

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

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

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

~~Keep~~ quite a bit of coverage here [2] [3] [4] [5], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect. Changing vote since, while notable, everything he is notable for is summed up at Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. ATM I do not see the content for a split, and since his notability is tied up in so many other people I think this is best for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

For the sake of building consensus, I am ok with a redirect to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist - Can we reach consensus on redirecting to Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment. I don't think this needed another relist. As the nominator, I supported the redirect. That's two of three commenters supporting the redirect, and one editor remaining supporting deletion. This could have easily closed as a redirect under WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

(She Was A) Hotel Detective

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Very strongly oppose: Article is fairly well sourced and I, for one, am tired of the "PRIMARY SOURCES IS BAD!!1!1!" attitude. I think it's common sense to say that the information contained in the sources themselves should dictate credibility, not whether they're primary or secondary. —theMainLogan (t•c) 18:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
A hopeless stance. Who decides whether "the information contained in the sources themselves dictates credibility"? Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to They Might Be Giants – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Maddelynn Hatter

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

Article relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep The article can be expanded further rather than deleted.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments: I never heard of the subject until now, but apparently 57 people I know follow her Instagram account. Since I have several mutuals, I'm not !voting, but I'll take a look at the sources. For the record, coming in 6th place in a reality show just means that there isn't a presumption of notability. She could still pass, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, jeez. Keep it I guess. I does meet the Six Virtues (a standard better than GNG IMO):

1) It is a decent article. Reasonably well written, formatted, etc. It's not such a mess that we'd be better off deleting it.

2) It's of reasonable length, at least a paragraph or so, if not more. It's not just a stub.

3) And there're 14 sources. I expect that most of them are reliable enough. It is true that they are from niche publications for that subculture and not Time magazine, but after all our first pillar starts off with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia... and combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias". Well an encyclopedia of 21st century American drag performers seems like a reasonable, if highly specialized, thing to exist, and of course for highly specialized topics (American 20th century Great Lakes steamers etc etc) you are not going to many articles in highly notable publications. You have to adjust your expectations for the subject. And there are 14 and not 3, which is a big difference.

4) And it doesn't violate WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, or other core existential rule, at least in a way that is not easily fixable.

5) And it is "encyclopedic", it something that some non-zero (if small) number of serious people learning or writing or just browsing abut this subculture in this time and place might want to read in future, it is not incontrovertibly trivia or ephemera (A pedestrian run over at 5th and main yesterday, what actor was seen holding hands with what actress, Cardinals-Cubs score, etc.) You want to be pretty broad here note that say George H. W. Bush vomiting incident (1992) is still getting 305 looks a day ([6] and so on.

6) And it already exists. It's not like we as a project are considering if we should spend time and energy on making the article; somebody already has. It costs us nothing to leave the work in place.

So... that's good enough for me. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sven Pichal

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

This person is convicted of ~~accused of and on trial for~~ (revolting) charges but does not appear to be independently notable (I can't find any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage prior to his arrest) from what he's been charged with. Per WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E, we shouldn't have a biography of this individual~~, at least not until the trial has concluded with a verdict~~. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Crime, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator that he does not pass NCRIMINAL, but looking at the sourcing on the nl.wiki page nl:Sven Pichal, I do think he passes NBASIC as a TV personality, with articles about him in major publications. Haven't searched too much though, but he is not BLP1E. Also, from what I can tell he was convicted in December 2024. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, missed that in the sources. Can you share the coverage you saw that you think clears the WP:SIGCOV bar separate from the crime? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: PARAKANYAA, thanks for referring to the NL page. The subject clearly passes GNG and WP:CRIMINAL. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you explain how he meets the CRIMINAL requirements? (The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or [t]he motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. I don't think either applies. The question is whether there are enough sources outside the crime to warrant a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I tried a .be websearch for news on this person before the trial, there isn't any. News is about the incident at work or about the trial, he was sprayed with urine at one point... I don't consider much of this terribly notable. The lack of any sourcing before the incident shows this isn't a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
At least 1'740 records according to Google https://www.google.com/search?q=Sven+Pichal+site%3A.be&sca_esv=f94ce9e8bf588227&hl=en&sxsrf=AHTn8zpQsmp7KIZ0i2jgyWuujlzJL5Fh9A%3A1737921576789&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A2022&tbm=

He had a daily radioshow where he was the main person, he was also the chairman of "het Roze huis" and the spokesperson of "Wel Jong Niet Hetero", and made news items. He even appeared on a music album "de Sinterklaas Zingt" (https://open.spotify.com/track/3VAay1Zh4hy3LdGttUumoj) where celeberties sang songs about saint Nicolas. KommuSoft (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: He doesn't appear to have been an on-air personality, so not well known by the public in Belgium. He worked behind the scenes. I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete I'm having to rely on Google translate, but I don't find sources about him as a TV personality prior to being arrested for crimes. And the articles about the crimes do not go into much detail about him. That there is an article in NL wiki is not a reason to have an article in EN wiki - each separate language wiki has its own policies for inclusion, and that is how it should be. Lamona (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

KDK Softwares

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

See previous deletions. Unable to meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a promotional article as well. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, India, and Rajasthan. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi B-Factor,
I’ve made several updates to the KDK Softwares article to address the concerns you raised regarding notability and promotional content.
1. Notability: I’ve added independent sources, which provide coverage of the company’s history, partnerships, and industry role, which I believe satisfies the notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE).
2. Neutrality: I’ve reworded sections that previously may have sounded promotional.
3. Citations: I’ve ensured that every single sentence in the article is now backed by a citation, and the references are from independent, reliable sources.
I believe these changes address the concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Please review the updated version and let me know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed. ShaliniTaknet (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: correct title for article appears to be KDK Software, which was speedy deleted as spam in 2011. I can't find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources to show how this meets WP:CORP, just passing mentions like this, interviews and paid placement like this, and social media. Sources cited are press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage verifying that the company exists, but now how it's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the input. I'm not sure why the page was created in 2011, since the notability of the company only increased only after 2017, hence the speedy deletion at the time is quite justified. For the latter points, I beg to differ since the sources cited are not just press releases or routine mentions. For example, The Hindu and Press Trust of India independently covered Intuit’s acquisition of KDK Softwares, which is a significant event in the industry. Empanelment by ICAI is another major highlight in the Indian taxation industry, especially after the launch of the new tax regime which posed significant complications and resistance among professionals. Coverage in BusinessLine and ThePrint also to some degree highlights not just the company's presence but its nationwide impact on tax professionals. S.Taknet (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: I believe it should not be deleted. It is a notable company in the Indian market, especially in tax field. The article has citations from independent and well-known sources. Its acquisition by Intuit and affiliation with association like ICAI and AIFTP, also, supports its notability.Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Thecoolfactfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: The article satisfies inclusion criteria under WP:ORGCRITE, as it demonstrates significant coverage (SIGCOV) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While some sources may provide routine coverage, there are multiple instances of non-trivial, independent reporting that establishes the subject's notability:
- WP:SIGEVENT: The acquisition by Intuit was covered by The Hindu (among others), which is a reliable, independent source. This is a significant event in the Indian software and taxation domain.
- WP:RECOG: Empanelment by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and affiliations with All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) shows recognition by notable entities within the industry and impact on the Indian tax ecosystem.
- Independent Coverage: Publications such as ThePrint and BusinessLine provide contextual analysis of the company’s role in addressing post-GST compliance challenges, which is non-routine and shows KDK’s nationwide impact on tax professionals.

Substantial efforts have been made to ensure the article adheres to WP:NPOV and WP:V. Content that could be sounding promotional has been removed, and every statement is now supported by citations from independent, reliable sources.

Given these points, the article meets the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) as well as the subject-specific notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE). S.Taknet (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: S.Taknet (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. AI-generated !votes would likely be discounted as they usually are not policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep as creator. I noted in the bundle discussion that I think this one has sufficient referencing to meet NSONG and/or GNG. It's close, though, and I doubt there's much to merge, so redirect if there's consensus against notability. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looks like Merge or Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete, but not just from nom's reasoning. The song simply fails WP:NSONG and bears no notability. Eelipe (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to They Might Be Giants – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Institute for Educational Advancement

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

Non-notable organization that sponsors scholarships. None of the sources in the article supports WP:NCORP, nor does anything in my WP:BEFORE search except for possibly this expert blog post. Everything else is press releases, trivial mentions, affiliated sources but nothing else that passes the NCORP threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep as creator; modestly notable scholarship is what the org is known for. Perhaps only needs to be one article about both; I merged the article on the scholarship into the one for the institute (though I could see it going the other direction). – SJ + 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you share which sources meet GNG for the scholarship? Every source you've added in the merged text is affiliated with the Institute or is a primary source. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The two full-ride scholarships are well known in high school + gifted ed circles because there aren't any others like it; I'll look again for an external review of what exists -- it's mostly catalogs with limited discussion. There does seem to be less written about programs and scholarships for younger children. Summer camps get more visibility; and I think the founder came out of CTY, added a bit of context there. – SJ + 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. 3/4 of the page is promoting the foundation, without significant coverage in three or more independent, secondary sources, and using words that are subjective and impart no verifiable information. When I taught at a junior college, every student in their second or third semester was required to take a class on critical thinking, which included a module on distinguishing between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Students in my paralegal program also had to take a second course on how that applies to legal research. The other 1/4 of the page veers off into a discussion about a different foundation with a similar mission, but one entity's notability doesn't confer the same on a different entity. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete as per Bearian's arguments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program

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

This article lacks inline cites and the topic is already covered in Space-based_solar_power#Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program No objection to merging if you think the refs at the end of this article are sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Spaceflight, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Merge is appropriate here. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 07:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

IdeaForge

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as Livemint, MoneyControl etc. Drushrush (talk) 06:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Trivial coverage WP:ORGTRIV, these news stories are about changes in stock prices. Not sufficient enough. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Silex Microsystems

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

It looks like most of the sources are press releases or routine coverage in industry publications, and I didn't find much SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep inclusion in the Financial Times and the Mercator Institute for China Studies shows that this page is worthy of inclusion on wiki. I find the "routine coverage in industry publications" comment questionable. What is "routine" about the coverage? Why does wiki discriminate against "industry publications"? Shouldn't we be promoting the Category:MEMS factories instead of deleting of one out of four articles in it? After all, if a $90 billion revenue company like TSMC is in the business of MEMS we should promote understanding of MEMS. Stickhandler (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Stickhandler (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete - (1) it's not our job to promote anything except our mission: in fact, to do so jeopardizes our existence (it's Concern 3 of My Big 4 Concerns of 2025); (2) the sources cited above are primary sources, which paradoxically are not the building blocks of an encyclopedia; (3) we don't discriminate against trade publications, but many of them just print press releases, and we keep a handy list of what sources are good, bad, or ugly. I don't expect every newbie to know all of our rules, but we have resources. Bearian (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hopes to get more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete coverage is rather routine and insufficient to meet WP:CORP, and article is bordering on WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Star Academies

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

Non notable academy, fails WP:NORG a before shows no independent coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep = star academies is an outstanding organisation, and the entry needs to be beefed up, not deleted. It is interesting because it was once a Muslim school chain (TIGS etc) and Hamid has made it broader and secular. Lots of dimensions of interest 80.6.86.18 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. I have not generally found that MATs meet GNG, but in this case I think it does. Have added coverage under both the organisation's current name and its former one. Tacyarg (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Chief Minister's Cup 2024

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT, tried to move to draftspace for improvement but the creator reverted the action. I brought it to AFD to avoid move-warring. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Uttar Pradesh. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Editors may recommend for draftifying if necessary. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Creator (me) reverted back by improving what reviewer told to improve

I added more sources

If needed more

I will add more

But aren't enough sources are given for a single exhibition match trophy cup? Sid Prayag (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Improved the article.. Look again into it Sid Prayag (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect with Kolkata Derby – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
A whole new cup? a whole new event organized by other.. How can i mix it. Shouldn't it have a separate article for itself Sid Prayag (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey I have provided many sources of media house covering this cup. Isn't it significant coverage? Sid Prayag (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete—No reason to merge. Clearly not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for draftification here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Beyblade X season 1

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

WP:REDUNFORK of List of Beyblade X episodes

Also nominating the second season for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It's a redundant fork. There are only two seasons, so having both seasons only under List of Beyblade X episodes would be the wisest move. Eelipe (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Greetings, Miminity! Just came to my notice today that both the articles were put on deletion. I have made few changes to the two articles. I also did some changes to this article, fearing it may fall under WP:REDUNFORK. Let me know your thoughts on it. Thank you and have a great day! VizDsouz (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST (For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. and If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries.) Beyblade X currently has 64 episodes and will eventually have 80 episodes. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Media Mender (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Merge with Beyblade X season 1 And rename page as simply Beyblade X, just like other programs with several seasons they should just be on one page. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Currently at 64 episodes, the episode count is expected to rise beyond 80. For such a series, having these two articles will be reliable in the future. VizDsouz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Manop Leeprasansakul

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

Declined prod that was redirected. I contested the redirect Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_8#Manop_Leeprasansakul. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Googling his name in Thai turns up a few hits in relation to his work as a police officer (his 2004 Master's thesis, 2008 news mentioning a transfer to the Inspector General's office, 2016 contact directory giving the rank of Pol.Lt.Col.) in addition to passing mentions in articles about Thailand in international sporting events[7][8], but nothing that could be considered in-depth. The latter two links indicate he's a gold medallist at the 1981 and 1989 SEA Games though. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's just delete without prejudice to redirecting to an appropriate target once that is shown to exist. Maybe a list of sports shooters who represented Thailand internationally could be created. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging User:BeanieFan11, who previously de-PRODed and redirected the page. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
- Why not just redirect it to Thailand at the 1984 Summer Olympics? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. AgusTates (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the sources presented by Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Flash Fiber

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

The article fails WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Italy. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose, Flash Fiber and FiberCop are two separate companies, and also meet the eligibility requirements. InterComMan (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
No, article reliance on primary sources like the company website and promotional materials are failing to establish sufficient notability or societal impact. Nxcrypto Message 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per ORG. Just to be clearer, all of the sources in the article are primary sources. A few such sources are okay when secondary sources verify that the company is notable. The biggest problem with finding new sources is that the company is defunct. I'm not sure why this page was created in the first place, but the new user might be mistaken about what we are. We are not an electronic version of a gazetteer. Bearian (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Stefan Swanepoel

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

Not notable. Promo for a business exec. PzizzleD (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Kenya, South Africa, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. There seems to be a misconception that getting a book on the New York Times Bestseller List is a free pass for a Wikipedia article. While there was a day, 15 or 18 years ago, when many people passed AfD on that basis, we have never been a free web host nor nor LinkedIn. I see lot of poor sourcing here. I'm not against Draftifying this, but I'm leaning delete . Bearian (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships

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

Utterly insignificant. No possible merge target at San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which would be a questionable page in itself, given that athletics lacks a high status in this micro-country. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Merge into San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which I just created. There's enough here for an article, for example "Eugenio Rossi dreams of first medal for San Marino at Euro Athletics Championships". --Habst (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Note that European Athletics is the organizer of the European Athletics Championships and therefore not an independent source Geschichte (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Non-EA sources: [9], [10], [11]. I came into this one with a skeptical eye but I'm seeing the coverage, and the WP:NLIST argument for these types of articles (keeping them as encyclopedic indices of competitors) is also convincing to me. --Habst (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Now that the target San Marino at the European Athletics Championships exists, I agree to redirect with prejudice. That means dispatching any and all individual year "articles" for San Marino. Geschichte (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

[1] ttps://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/dec/02/ground-zero-for-climate-change-the-shoreline-sculpture-park-coming-to-miami

[2] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/travel/reef-line-miami-beach.html

[3] ttps://www.vogue.com/article/faena-forum-cultural-center-miami-ximena-caminos-curator-baz-luhrmann

[4] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/03/arts/design/art-basel-miami-beach-see.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]