Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

23 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< March 22	March 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Damodar Sharma

AfDs for this article:

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

On a WP:BEFORE search i didnt found any reliable source, fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SIGCOV. All references used in this biography are dead urls and being a vice chancellor doesn't inherit notability without coverage in the Secondary sources. Also he don’t have any prestigious award or high research career to gain notability. Fails WP:NACADEMIC TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the nominator perhaps justify their claim that being vice chancellor (which here means head of an entire university) does not make the subject notable, and that secondary sources are required, when both of those claims would appear to be contradicted by WP:PROF#C6? C6 gives notability to heads of universities and does not require secondary sourcing for that notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, @David. I appreciate the reference to WP:PROF#C6, which states that notability can be conferred to “The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.” While being a vice chancellor (head of a university) could theoretically qualify under this criterion, the guideline still operates within the broader context of Wikipedia’s notability policies, particularly WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to establish notability. WP:NPROF itself is not a standalone exemption from WP:GNG but rather a specific guideline that supplements it, and C6 is typically interpreted as applying when the role or institution is of such prominence that it inherently generates verifiable coverage.

In this case, my WP:BEFORE search did not uncover any reliable, independent secondary sources providing significant coverage of the subject’s tenure as vice chancellor or their broader academic career. The references in the article are dead URLs, and I couldn’t find alternative sources to substantiate notability. While the position of vice chancellor is significant, not every individual in such a role automatically meets the threshold for notability without evidence of broader impact or recognition (e.g., through awards, high-profile research, or media coverage), as outlined in WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV. Without such evidence, I believe the article still fails to meet Wikipedia’s standards for inclusion.

I’d be happy to reconsider if reliable secondary sources can be provided to demonstrate the subject’s notability under C6 or any other criterion. Absent that, my nomination stands on the grounds of insufficient coverage and failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. TheSlumPanda (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact you are completely incorrect. WP:PROF does not operate in the broader context of WP:GNG. It is a separate notability standard with its own separate requirements that are not subsumed by GNG. (Nor do they strengthen GNG rather than being subsumed by them, as for instance WP:NORG does.) It explicitly states, as I said before, that independent secondary sourcing is not a requirement for verifying that its criteria are met. (The criteria must still be reliably sourced, but the sources can be primary and non-independent.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @David Eppstein, Recently i also created an article on a vice chancellor of 2 universities (one of them is central university in india) but that got rejected at Afc submission stating that the subject don’t have sig cov. (See). TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this is all an exercise in WP:POINT because your drafts were badly sourced and/or some overworked AfC reviewers weren't familiar with WP:PROF? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No thats not because of WP:POINT, i nominated this article because this subject doesn’t have any presence in secondary sources on WP:BEFORE.TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSlumPanda, that was definitely a mistake on the part of the reviewer. I'll let them know. -- asilvering (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eigen

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

No indication of notability. Of 11 refs, almost all are from his own works; one is an interview with him, one is an entry from Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide. He has written 45 books. It is not easy to find reviews other than publisher abstracts or Goodreads blurbs or equivalent; one of his better-known ones (caveat: I am not knowledgeable about this) appears to be Toxic Nourishment, and a search for reviews returns mostly sales sites. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Psychology, and United States of America. Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SWBC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article created by seemingly WP:SPA and has been tagged for notability issues for years.

From what I can see ignoring press releases, the remaining coverage doesn't meet WP:ORGCRITE. Routine stuff like hiring/firing news, reporting some acquisitions without further details , the company getting a rating or some non-notable award etc. There is some coverage on employment lawsuits but the focus is on the lawsuits rather than the company and per WP:ILLCON cannot be used to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Texas. Imcdc Contact 08:34, 9 March 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 10:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems nothing special or well-covered. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connect (insurance company)

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

No evidence of notability in the article, spam Polygnotus (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article really needs to be updated more for its current ownership rather than its previous Ameriprise ownership, and to mention more about how its used within AmFam (it's had a long time relationship with Costco for instance, which drives its members to use this provider specifically), and I don't forsee deletion here with the AmFam connection. Nathannah • 📮 23:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the sources in the article, the only ones with any pretensions to be independent sigcov are a profile of a a profile of a company exec in Response Magazine, a trad mag and Insurance Journal covering an acquisition. The name is unfortunately generic enough it's rather difficult to search for, even "Connect insurance" is overshaddowed by insurance connecting things and other similarly named platforms. There's an article on the sale of their ex-hq in the Green Bay Press Gazette, the local paper. WP:NCORP generally doesn't consider routine coverage of mergers to be sigcov, and the Response Magazine profile is focused on the person rather than the company, so this doesn't add up to notability. Rusalkii (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of names this insurer has had certainly makes for an adventurous search. Luckily, I've turned up all the needed articles including pretty regular SIGCOV in Green Bay. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside claims for SIGCOV, which references meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which are needed to meet criteria for establishing notability? I don't think any of them do... HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with its parent, American Family Insurance. Seems on the edge notability wise and preferring an WP:ATD, especially per analysis by Rusalkii. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American Family Insurance as per WP:ATD and the suggestion above. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. This is a clear No consensus but my instinct is to close this as a Merge. I need a stronger sign that this is what participants want.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per analysis by Rusalkii does not apply any more and did not apply even then. At the time Rusalkii did the analysis, the article had 8 sources. At the time that JackFromWisconsin wrote that it had 20, as Sammi Brie had noted before. There's a prose history section back to 1979 now, that no longer falsely sources events in 2005 to a 2001 book (which had stood since 2013). Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (Cricket) awards

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 07:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is WPL version of this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_Premier_League_awards. I have made this article after 3 years of the event which is enough time for the notability of the tournament Rtyggu (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WPL on its own doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for this. Vestrian24Bio 08:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, IPL awards took 10 years to reach notability. Vestrian24Bio 08:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:39, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Arizona and Washington, D.C., hunger strike

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

As was predicted by delete !voters in 2021 and 2022, this event has not had any persistent coverage. I cannot find news coverage since the strike ended; it is not mentioned in articles about other acts of youth protest or otherwise used as a point of comparison. All I find googling it is tons of other hunger strikes that do not have articles, because hunger strikes, while dramatic, are a not-infrequent act of political protest, and usually do not pass WP:GNG, let alone the higher bar of WP:NEVENT. (Morbid but true, usually the thing that makes a hunger strike pass those bars is someone dying, which did not happen in this case.) Perhaps there's room for a single sentence at For the People Act (currently neither that nor John Lewis Voting Rights Act mention this), but not for an article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chingari (app)

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

Majority of the references are press releases or announcements. No significant coverage. Does not appear to be notable under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Software. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine coverage such as brief mentions, routine announcements, and press releases is all I find. Nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article appears to be promotional, and the references are mostly press announcements. Sethi752 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are not more than simple passing mentions and press releases. Above all they are not independent. Go with Nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that there are no sources to create notability for the article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't all press releases, but indeed almost all. And the 1 that isn't isn't about this subject specifically. A quick search for sources turns up the same kind of sourcing as that one: being about the TikTok ban and giving a list of things that were created to fill the void, rather than discussing this one specifically. Uncle G (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keat Hwa Centennial Celebrations

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

Article is written with WP:PROMO style and does not meet notability since it is a local school anniversary event. The article also contains the same contents in the main article section of the event. Syn73 (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ong Kai Jin since he challenged the previous PROD. Syn73 (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Schools, and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biswatma Nayak

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

This article provides a more comprehensive discussion of an application he developed. The majority of the references relate to the Chingari (app), which similarly appears to be a non-notable application. Nonetheless, the references fail to meet WP:RS criteria to validate WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, India, and Odisha. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of calypsos with sociopolitical influences

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

First, I want to aknowledge the effort of LordGriot (then Loguenn) for this huge list article.

However, as a list, I don't see it's viability. It's, as far as I can tell, an original attempt at organizing every callipso song into various arbitrary topics like "Aspiration", "Health" and "Culture - Other". Referencing is... really not great.

I've tried to look for other similar lists and AFAICT this is the only attempt at organizing all the songs of genre into "topics".

So for these reasons, I recommend deletion, though the source code should be made available upon request to anyone that would like to copy that on something like a Callypso Wiki or some such. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SwiftOnSecurity

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

i don't think this meets the notability requirements..? the only accomplishments here are two sentences mentioning they tweeted about a vulnerability. - avxktty ^(talk) 03:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a shocking number of reliable secondary sources about this account, including several books with more than a passing mention. AFAIK, notability does not necessarily imply a need for accomplishments so much as significant coverage in RS. Anerdw (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i believe this is generally only true when the event is extremely notable, or are involved with multiple events..? (WP:SINGLEEVENT) - avxktty ^(talk) 11:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that finding a CVE fulfils the following requirement 'The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field' WP:ANYBIO. Also WP:OBSCURE

Swift on Security is widely regarded as an important figure and widely cited by peers WP:AUTHOR as an expert to follow. See,

- https://www.troyhunt.com/troys-ultimate-list-of-security-links/

- https://www.perimeter81.com/blog/news/top-10-security-experts-you-should-be-following-in-2020

- https://www.rapid7.com/globalassets/_pdfs/whitepaperguide/rapid7-komand-defining-your-career-cybersecurity-professional-whitepaper.pdf

As per Anerdw's previous vote, there are a number of reliable sources quoted in the references for this page, further establishing notability. SallyRenee (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bangladesh alleged judicial coup attempt

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

This article was created by a sock with a history of copyvio and what is either original research or POV pushing. The g5 tag was declined, resulting in a very long ANI thread discussing whether Wikipedians should AGF about their creations, and due to concerns expressed by many editors that their creations, like this one, might be valuable. While that may seem true at first glance, furhter inspection quickly reveals this article to be just a whole lot of WP:OR talking about a coup or potential that sources do not claim happened, or even discuss in any detail further than quoting one of the student leaders as a background to explain why the students are protesting.

This article's first problem is the title - it says "alleged" coup, and then goes on to refer to the existence of a coup as fact in the lead, using plenty of weasel words to make this incongruence seem less obvious.

The article's next problem is that, out of its 34 sources, only 8 include a statement quoting or referencing somebody accusing the justices of a coup. Less than half are about the Bangladesh judiciary. Of course, that didn't stop the article creator from making it seem like these references were about the alleged coup - there are numerous instances in this article where statements are cited to articles completely unrelated to that statement. There's even a fair few examples of statements about events cited to articles published before those events even happened.

If there is any notability to an alleged coup, which I doubt, this article does not demonstrate it. A large amount of text, including the bits that are actually supported by their citations, is already duplicated at Aftermath of July Revolution (Bangladesh). WP:TNT. Any people looking to WP:HEY this should go and put their efforts into writing a new article about the student-led protests calling for the old judiciary to resign.

Caption

Source

Has a statement where one person accuses the justices of a coup

About student protests about the judiciary

Notes

"Bangladesh: Chief Justice resigns after fresh protests erupt at Supreme Court over 'judiciary coup'". India TV. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 21 September 2024.

Specifically attributes claims of a coup to student protest leaders, does use the words themselves even in the headline. Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

Chaudhury, Dipanjan Roy (11 August 2024). "Bangladesh CJI Obaidul Hassan resigns after protesters' ultimatum". The Economic Times.

Article says "The protesting students called the full court meeting a judicial coup and besieged the High Court" Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

"Bangladesh top judge steps down following student protests". EFE. 10 August 2024.

Article says "The students accused Justice Hassan of attempting a judicial coup to restore power to Hasina". Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

"Bangladesh crisis: Why protesting students forced Chief Just". The Times of India. 10 August 2024.

Article says: "Judiciary coup? [...] However, the students percieved this as a judiciary coup and announced their intentions to besiege the High Court premises". Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt"

"বিচারপতিরা জুডিশিয়াল ক্যু করতে চেয়েছিলেন : এলডিপি মহাসচিব". Daily Kalbela (in Bengali). 12 August 2024.

Reprints Redwan Ahmed calling the events a coup, was used to back up a statement saying that the judiciary might have been trying to restore power to Hasina.

"Bangladesh chief justice agrees to resign amid new student protests". Aljazeera. 10 August 2024.

Article says "“They viewed this as a judicial coup in the making, so they quickly gathered at the Supreme Court and demanded that he immediately resign,” Chowdhury said." which actually can be used to support what it's cited to.

"Anti-Discrimination Student Movement calls for High Court siege". Dhaka Tribune. 10 August 2024. Retrieved 13 October 2024.

"judicial queue"

Actually backs up the text it cites.

"'ষড়যন্ত্র ফাঁস', জুডিশিয়াল ক্যু বানচাল করলো ছাত্ররা". The Daily Ittefaq (in Bengali). 11 August 2024.

"জুডিশিয়াল ক্যু'র ষড়যন্ত্র ফাঁস': শিক্ষার্থীদের বিক্ষোভে বানচাল". Bangla Vision (in Bengali). 11 August 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2024.

Same source article reprinted on multiple websites, no author given other than some variation of "desk". Mostly appears to be reprinting a student leader's Facebook post.

"Bangladesh Chief Justice & 5 top judges resign amid demand for restructuring of judiciary". The Telegraph India. 10 August 2024.

Specifically used in lead to justify use of word "coup", despite the article not using it.

"Bangladesh's chief justice resigns under pressure as Yunus-led interim government starts working". AP News. 12 August 2024.

Article is about the chief justice's resignation, fears that he might be loyal to Hasina, and human rights abuses by Hasina's government, but it used to support a claim that "The coup attempt centred around the Supreme Court of Bangladesh in Dhaka, where several judges, led by Chief Justice Obaidul Hassan, were accused of planning a legal manoeuvre to challenge the legitimacy of the interim government"

"Full court meeting of SC called off, students demand resignation of CJ, other justices". The Business Standard. 10 August 2024.

Mentions the student leaders commenting about a conspiracy, contains absolutely no mention of the meeting being potentially "irregular and unconstitutional" Ahmed or anybody else. Also, used to back up a statement expressed by Ahmed. Ahmed is not mentioned in the article.

"প্রধান বিচারপতির পদত্যাগের দাবিতে সুপ্রিম কোর্ট প্রাঙ্গণে সাড়ে ৩ ঘণ্টা বিক্ষোভ". Prothom Alo (in Bengali). 10 August 2024.

Is exclusively about the student protests and resignation, but used to back up statements about "lawyers, and civil society members" protesting.

"প্রধান বিচারপতিসহ আপিল বিভাগের ৬ বিচারপতির পদত্যাগ". banikbarta.net (in Bengali). 11 August 2024.

Article is about six high-ranking judges who resigned due to the protests, mentions nothing about "loyalty", "connections to the previous regime", or judges from "Chattogram, Khulna, and Sylhet", despite being used to source all those statements.

"CJ, 5 other SC judges resign". The Daily Star (Bangladesh). 11 August 2024.

Article is about the same six-high ranking judges who resigned due to the protests, but it used to cite the statement "twelve judges resigned or were removed as part of the efforts to restore confidence in the judiciary and cleanse it of perceived biases".

"Bangladesh swears in new chief justice as old guard quit". France 24. 11 August 2024.

This video is about protests all over the country concerning human rights issues, forced disappearances, and more. The Headline says that they got a new chief justice, the reporter makes one comment about students protesting against the judiciary, and the paragraph below says that Syed Refaat Ahmed was made the new chief justice. It does not say anything about an "independent judicial commission", the statement in the article that it's used to support.

"ক্যুর চেষ্টা হলে ভয়াবহ পরিণতি হবে : আসিফ মাহমুদ". Kaler Kantho (in Bengali). 26 August 2024.

Contains an accusation that the Bangladesh Ansar, Bangladesh's paramilitary force, were attempting a coup. Our article uses this to justify calling the events "The 2024 Bangladesh judicial coup attempt".

"It was a revolution in Bangladesh, and we should recognise it as such: Shivshankar Menon". The Business Standard. 15 August 2024.

"জুলাই বিপ্লবের শহীদদের স্মরণ". Kaler Kantho (in Bengali). 17 August 2024.

"Will Yunus-led interim government bring Bangladesh out of its 'dark era'?". Aljazeera. 9 August 2024.

Predates the event, specifically used to cite information about the event.. that hadn't happened yet.

"Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina has resigned and left the country, media reports say". South China Morning Post. 5 August 2024.

Predates the event, specifically used to cite information about the event

"Bangladesh crisis highlights: Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus takes oath as the head of Bangladesh's interim government". The Hindu. 2024-08-08. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2024-09-03.

Predates the event

"Chief Advisor Yunus briefs on action plans, urges patience to overcome challenges". bdnews24.com. 25 August 2024.

Specifically used to cite information about a judiciary coup and protests. Article mentions neither.

"Chief Justice adjourns full court meeting". Dhaka Tribune. 10 August 2024.

"Chief justice's full court meeting postponed". The Daily Observer. 10 August 2024.

"Bangladesh ex-PM Sheikh Hasina did not officially resign from her post before fleeing, says her son". India TV. 10 August 2024.

Specifically used to cite information about the protests/coup

"Joy says his mother didn't resign, Hasina says otherwise". The Business Standard. 11 August 2024.

Specifically used to cite information about the protests/coup

"চট্টগ্রামের নতুন জেলা ও দায়রা জজ আসাদুজ্জামান খান". Banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 30 August 2024.

About the new Chittagong Metropolitan Sessions Judge, but is used to support a statement about justices in districts "such as Chattogram, Khulna, Rajshahi, and Sylhet".

"নিম্ন আদালতের ৮১ বিচারককে বদলি". khulnagazette.com (in Bengali). 30 August 2024.

Google translate has trouble with this one

"Bangladesh's interim govt plans national elections soon after reforms". China Daily. 19 August 2024.

Does not support the timeframe claimed in the Wiki article

"Bangladesh interim government to seek reforms before an election, adviser says". NHK World-Japan. 18 August 2024. Archived from the original on 2024-09-04.

Does not support the material it cites

"Chief adviser seeks UNDP's support for reforms". UNDP. 29 August 2024.

"EU seeks to engage with Yunus-led interim government". The Daily Observer. 9 August 2024.

"UN, EU, China welcome Yunus-led interim government in Bangladesh". New Age. 9 August 2024.

Does not support the material it cites

TL;DR: POV-pushing sock creates an article that looks okay, but is about a topic that reliable sources haven't discussed and therefore falls apart the moment you look at the sources. Article doesn't appear notable, G5 was declined, AFD it is. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bangladesh. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 03:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without salting, although if there are very few sources then expanding Yunus ministry is likely a more fruitful editing task than trying to figure out how to make this article work. CMD (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I put an ”in use” template on the judicial coup article and started trimming it before going to bed last night. This morning, I was surprised to see it taken to AfD. If important, notable but suspicious articles like this are to be deleted, AfD is the better route. Still, I am chagrined that I wasted 2 hours researching this with a template on it. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 12:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lianna Rebolledo

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

PROD'd this back in 2023, more citations were added and tag was removed but I don't think they're reliable/independent enough to give her notability. GraziePrego (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, Latin America, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Sarah Flaum

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

Article has sources but not a single one treats the subject other than passing mentions of her as a member of a cast. A further search reveals only primary sources and a raft of social media entries. Fails both points of WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. A search for citations only reveals only social media pages and blogs. desmay (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/06/25/the-tale-a-wrenching-and-wise-story-about-sexual-abuse allows to verify the role/contribution to a notable production is significant; as do https://filmthreat.com/reviews/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/arts/television/the-tale-hbo-review.html

Also see https://msmagazine.com/2022/05/24/abortion-add-to-cart-documentary-film-abortion-pills/ -Mushy Yank. 18:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional citations:

https://movieweb.com/lets-scare-julie-review/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/jade-pettyjohn-jojo-siwa-all-my-friends-are-dead-1235495409/

https://movieweb.com/amfad-all-my-friends-are-dead-marcus-dunstan-horror-movie/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/tale-review-1076440/

https://www.mmm-online.com/home/channel/documentary-explores-post-roe-v-wade-abortion-access/

https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/the-tale-review-laura-dern-1202670927/ jaguar (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with 2-3 significant roles in notable productions; also probably meets WP:CREATIVE for her work on AMFAD. -Mushy Yank. 15:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Fails both points of WP:NACTOR." according to the nominator? What points? How does she fail them if her roles are significant and the productions, notable? -Mushy Yank. 15:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, on the info already in the article, she meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. Previous AfD from 2014 only considered mentions in news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 02:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is written just, disastrously, but there are some non-news sources. It may however need to be "eventified" or shifted scope. not sure, because the notability seems to be mixed between the crime, her conviction, and elements of her as a person which is why this case is notable, so I think it may be the best choice to write it as a biography. However I would not object to someone nuking most of this page because we should not be using FindLaw on a BLP!!

There are several pages of discussion on her using her as a case study in the academic book The Fairer Death: Executing Women in Ohio, mentions in Women and Capital Punishment in the United States a brief mention in [1], probably more PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some in this law book as well [2] though not sure how useful that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Columbia Patriot Party

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

Fails WP:ORG. Defunct provincial party that achieved insignificant results in the elections it contested, never garnering more than a hundredth of a percent of the popular vote or half a percent in any riding. A search through Google and provincial archives returned no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The news sources given are routine coverage that neither focus on the party nor describe it in detail. All the other sources are standard governmental reports that do not establish the party's notability. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (National Post, Vancouver Sun, Vernon Morning Star, Penticton Western News). The article is not "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion" as the party is long defunct. I started the article, but have no connection to the party or its organizers, and have never lived in British Columbia. Ground Zero | t 01:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the automated notice template described the article as "abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion", but certainly that is not the argument I am making. I contend that the coverage in those papers is minor and not in-depth, a comparison being the creation of articles for every failed candidate mentioned in those same articles. Yue🌙 18:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Canada. Yue🌙 01:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Routine mentions of a party contesting an election are not in-depth, substantive coverage. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evrim Ağacı

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. The most I could find is receiving a grant from the European Society for Evolutionary Biology and some blog posts. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Turkey. ^Falling_Gravity 03:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Friedman

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

I found this article that is directly about him (but it is more of an interview). Other than that, coverage is mainly based on mentions or is directly about Scribd, a company he co-founded. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 03:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Computing, Internet, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tikhon Bernstam

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Internet, California, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Bourret

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

I can find zero google news results. Zip. Google Search results give a paragraph, max, of coverage. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Badminton. Jay Cubby 02:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Radio Canada piece from 2020, on his role as school sports director during COVID. This is possibly the same itw. here an article on him from 2004 (non-Olympic). Mentions from the 2004 Sydney Olympics here, here, here. Some non-independent news on his role in Badminton Canada here, here. Mentioned here from a 2002 competition. Apparently the General Director of Sports Montreal, Inc. ([3]). Quoted here in news piece from 2024. --Soman (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield Riding and Driving Club

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

I can find no discussion in depth on this subject. All I can find is photographs and passing mentions in the newspaper, such as "50 years ago today it began having horse shows," and "XXXX won YYYY trophy." I can't even find articles about its organization or dissolution. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, Horse racing, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pilling's Cascade

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

This seems to have been photographed on a geographic survey in the 19th century. Beyond these photos, I can find no mention of it, what to speak of a discussion in depth. Even the single source on the page only carries a captioned photo of it and no discussion whatever. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGEO. GBooks has lots of 19th century books and magazines with photos/illustrations, but no description. Nothing from recent years was found. Was the waterfall renamed? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendelin Küpers

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

The subject appears not to meet any of the notabilty criteria laid down in WP:NACADEMIC, and no evidence is offered of him meeting WP:GNG. The only source cited with a working link is to Küpers page at the Karlshochschule International University, a small non-profit private foundation university, where he is currently a professor. The article is simply a resume, created by the article subject himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Social science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as does not meet WP:NACADEMIC under any criteria, and no evidence of any notability under WP:ANYBIO. No independent reliable secondary sources discussing the subject. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. No SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The article reads like a CV, with routine academic roles and unverified publication lists (WP:NOTCV). No evidence of notability beyond basic faculty listings or guest editorial work. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playscape

AfDs for this article:

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

Could redirect to Playground —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 01:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 01:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a different concept than a playground. No other rationale for deletion given. SportingFlyer T·C 10:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Karaoke King

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

Unreferenced film article. No wikilinked actors or director. Not clear this meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing at all found about this film... Even the Imdb page isn't much. I don't think this film is notable, the lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [4], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, United States of America, and Florida. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see plenty of good sources. I remember the incident that lead to his being banned from the airline, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There are issues with the article, but they can be resolved through ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: Do you think he meets points 3 or 4 of WP:CREATIVE? I did not express that well, but WP:CREATIVE was intended to be the main point of my nom. I am willing to withdraw this nom if there is a convincing argument that he does. Janhrach (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that he meets factor #3 as having written several related books. Bearian (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it also says that:

In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);

I don't see multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, but I haven't really done a thorough search. Like I have written, I have found [5], but the other articles I have found were blogs (or similar), not articles from periodicals. Janhrach (talk) 12:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (may return with !vote) This is a typical promotional article for someone whose main skill is promoting. He writes those books a friend of mine calls "business porn": which promise great wealth not unlike that of megachurch leaders. I removed some irrelevant promotional statements, but there are undoubtedly more. I am not sure that the speaking awards (e.g. "Certified Speaking Professional (CSP) Award") are of value because the organization appears to be a speakers' bureau. Two of the book awards (IPPY) are indeed awards but he is among other winners, in one case one of 66. A fairly snide article in Time magazine was used for one "cute" quote but ignored 4 paragraphs of negative review of his work. (I fixed some of that.) The reviews by Jack Covert seem to be in a personal blog, albeit a pretty ambitious one. His books have sold many copies, and I can see some presence in library collections. I confess that I have little regard for this category of output, along with all of the self-help books. I just thought I should be honest about my prejudice. Lamona (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has had best-selling books although I do not find the two NY Times pages that are listed here. I do find a 2003 NYT best seller list for "paperback advice" books. It seems odd that an older list turns up in a search on his name but the two newer ones listed here do not. I cannot find anything that is independent to fill in his bio, other than being banned by an airline for bad behavior. The link to 800ceoread is a blog post on a book sales site. As I note above the various positive quotes were cherry-picked. Given the degree of PROMO and the lack of independent sources I tend to have doubts about the sources on the article that I cannot find. Lamona (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only see various promotional interviews [6], that link is the best, but it's still not helpful as a Forbes contributor piece. Gbooks and Gscholar are only copies of his various books. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Lincoln Township does not meet even WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 218 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 237 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grounds of I2Overcome [ETA: but Mangoe makes goods points below so i feel less strident now.] Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa and consider as a proxy for the many other Iowa townships. Look, every time we have to consider a whole class of geographical articles like this, if we do a group no0mination someone will demand they be split up, and if only one or a few are nominated, the opposite ploy is made. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY surely applies here, and if we go through a few of these and determine for each that they shouldn't have individual articles (which is how we handled it in NC), we can come back and consider the rest as a group. Anyway, searching produces almost nothing but census data and some old maps. I did find county supervisors minutes listing election results for township clerk positions (with tiny numbers in most cases), so the things are not completely defunct, but for instance I didn't find a web page for this township or anything else that even indicates what it does. My impression is that they are relatively minor administrative subdivisions, and I think a table and map in the county article which includes some reasonable set of the census data is a better presentation. I would not oppose outright deletion either given that there is so little information we appear to be able to give for each one. If someone can come up with other information of greater substance, OK, but the procedurally-based responses above don't address content and really almost count as an admission that none of these articles ought to be retained on their own merits. Mangoe (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- All fair points; really i wonder if the creator would have objected to this county's townships if they all had just been redirected. I happened to dig up some historical census information for this township (which is harder than one might think, each decennial census is a mess to dig around in massive PDFs and defunct websites), and concluded there is really nothing to be known of value about this township except that it exists.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not be opposed to this. However, I still think it makes the most sense to only consider these articles together, perhaps one county per nomination so there are not hundreds at once. For example, there are 16 townships in Shelby County, and I see no reason why anyone would object to them being nominated together. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Psst! I already pointed out two such sources at the very start of this discussion. We all know where we expect to find the county histories, at this point after doing this for so many years. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I, for one, have only been doing this for a few months, so I have no idea where to find the county histories. Unfortunately, those two last names and publication years are not much help. Moreover, all five townships that were nominated here are in one county, so I'm not sure why you seem to be referring to histories of more than one county. There are townships of the same names in several other Iowa counties (which further suggests they are not notable). I also have to question whether obscure works from over 100 years ago plus census data are enough to establish notability. I₂Overcome ^talk 05:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where do you think that you will find two county histories for Shelby County, Iowa, cited in Wikipedia? What's an obvious place? ☺ Raw census data is how some of our place articles started out, thanks to Rambot (talk · contribs). It's possible with many places to augment that with history, demographics, physical geography, political geography, and so forth. It's even better the other way around, where the census data are a supplement rather than the primary thing. It's also possible to connect the histories of Lincoln and Westphalia Townships using the Iowa Journal of History and Politics. Uncle G (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Polk Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Polk Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 122 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 237 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. And again, there's nothing but census and maps, except for a wildlife area which I'm not sure what level it's administered at. Google didn't even pull up the 2002 election results, in which three people voted for the clerk position; in fact the county website doesn't mention the townships at all, but then again it doesn't appear to have been updated since some time in 2023. I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- And the two county histories pointed to right at the beginning of this discussion. Don't overlook them. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Shelby Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, pp. 216–217 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, pp. 237–238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then how do you suggest getting townships where very few people live, which have nothing of note in their history, out of the backlog of places for which geographic coordinates have been requested? There's no way to note why they're in the backlog or whether or not they're worthy of note. Alternatively, where do you suggest the coordinates should point? Whose property or home? Geographic center? Last UFO sighting? (I'm making these jokes as someone who comes from one of these places where all you have to talk to is the grass and sky.) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems quite clear that you have not looked at the county histories to know what is in them, even though I explicitly pointed them out with the precise page numbers of the more concentrated stuff therein, especially as I pointed to the different things for each individual township and you are just in contrast copy-pasting generic comments. Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. In the 2002 election results, 27 people voted for the clerk position. It's obviously next to impossible to do a good search for this place, but I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- I gave two of the county histories right at the beginning of this discussion, with the precise page numbers for the more concentrated stuff, which saves on the searching considerably. You and I both know where the county histories will be found, having done this for years. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Union Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Union Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, p. 218 in one county history and Dunbar 1889, p. 238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Then how do you suggest getting townships where very few people live, which have nothing of note in their history, out of the backlog of places for which geographic coordinates have been requested? There's no way to note why they're in the backlog or whether or not they're worthy of note. Alternatively, where do you suggest the coordinates should point? Whose property or home? Geographic center? Last UFO sighting? (I'm making these jokes as someone who comes from one of these places where all you have to talk to is the grass and sky.) Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems quite clear that you have not looked at the county histories to know what is in them, even though I explicitly pointed them out with the precise page numbers of the more concentrated stuff therein. Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. As usual, there's virtually nothing but census and maps; I did come across a township budget which indicates they apparently run a fire station and a cemetery (the latter seems to be a constant across these), so there's that, but the amounts involved are pretty small. I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- You didn't spot that I gave two of the county histories right at the beginning of this discussion, with the precise page numbers? Uncle G (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westphalia Township, Shelby County, Iowa

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

Westphalia Township, Shelby County, Iowa does not even meet WP:GNG Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has White 1915, pp. 114–115 in one county history (reaching back to when it was known as Sumner Township) and Dunbar 1889, p. 238 in the other, both specifically on the township, as well as other information dotted throughout those. Then there are things like the Iowa Secretary of State publishing population and housing statistics for Iowa broken down by township. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secretary of State information on statistics isn't in-depth discussion of the townships and doesn't make them notable, and clicking those links brings me back to this page. The link text doesn't even give enough information for a person to try to track them down to see the coverage. Why not add them to the pages as sources, so the sources can justify the pages' existence? That would cost about the same amount of effort as having posted here but the benefit would be greater.. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, not notable per the specific guidance at WP:NTOWN: "…if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law." I₂Overcome ^talk 19:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oona Wikiwalker There are 1,599 townships in Iowa and almost all of them have articles; from a quick sampling it appears that most of them are stubs that may also fail WP:NTOWN. I suggest you withdraw these five nominations and nominate the lot of them if you still think they should be deleted. See WP:BUNDLE for instructions, but you would probably still have to individually tag several hundred pages. The AutoWikiBrowser would make that less tedious, but you have to request permission to use it if you haven’t already. For these five individually, Strong Keep. I₂Overcome ^talk 20:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per grounds of I2Overcome. Structurally speaking we have thousands of township articles as the primary next level subdivision of United States counties, judging each individually would create an absolute incoherent mess.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to list of townships in Shelby County, Iowa or maybe delete outright. I'm not rehashing the group nom discussion again so we can get right on to this place's notability. I did a little better here: besides the usual census and maps,.I found one of those turn-of-the-century chatty county histories which actually gives a date for the founding of the township. Other than that it's scarcely noted; even the town which sits in it doesn't get a lot. I'm seeing a WP:GNG fail here and the history of results for these minor subdivisions has not been to grant them blanket immunity from deletion. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't spot that I gave two of them right at the beginning of this discussion, with the precise page numbers? You could have gone straight to them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity Model of British Ancestry

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

There is no such thing as the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry", and the old sources being united under this heading are about different things, and are handled in various other WP articles. This new article fails in terms of WP:NOTE, WP:OR, and WP:V. There has been discussion already on the talk page, and no convincing source has been forthcoming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is about a school of thought that was once dominant in British genetics as late as 15 years ago, which will mean that the subject is notable. which if included in other articles would give undue weight to the now largely abandoned idea that the British gene pool is substantially unaffected by subsequent invaders, because Wikipedia was being substantially written then. There was at two major TV series devoted to this, Francis Pryor's Britain AD and Britain BC, while you had some best sellers (as well as the accompanying books from Francis Pryor, they also included Blood of the Isles and The Origins of the British) which propounded a theory that was dominant in academia before more genetic testing of ancient DNA became practical. Some quotes that illustrate the thinking from that time:

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old 'invasion model', and the notion of large-scale migrations, once the key explanation for change in early Britain, has been widely discredited." Dr Simon James - BBC article
"All these marker systems indicate a deep-shared ancestry in the Atlantic zone, dating at least in part to the end of the Ice Age" - Genetics and the Origins of the British Population - in the Wiley Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (accesible with Wikimedia)
"But geneticists who have tested DNA throughout the British Isles are edging toward a different conclusion. Many are struck by the overall genetic similarities, leading some to claim that both Britain and Ireland have been inhabited for thousands of years by a single people that have remained in the majority, with only minor additions from later invaders like Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings and Normans." Nicholas Wade
"The genetic evidence shows that three quarters of our ancestors came to this corner of Europe as hunter-gatherers, between 15,000 and 7,500 years ago, after the melting of the ice caps but before the land broke away from the mainland and divided into islands." - Prospect article by Stephen Oppenheimer, a major populariser of the argument
"This idea of a ‘Beaker Folk’ became unpopular after the 1960s as scepticism grew about the role of migration in mediating change in archaeological cultures" - The Beaker Phenomenon and the Genomic Transformation of Northwest Europe *"During the 1960s scepticism began to grow about the primacy of migration as a vector of social change in prehistory." The return of the Beaker Folk? Rethinking migration and population change in British prehistory academic paper that severely challenged the school
"By that time, many scholars favoured a model of elite dominance involving small, mobile warbands and the acculturation of the local British population" The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool - Later article that severely challenged this school

I intend to add others as this debate goes on. JASpencer (talk) 06:53, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JASpencer: As discussed on the article talk page, what you are listing are at best different arguments (I think doubts would be a better term) against different possible migrations, in different periods of history and prehistory. They are simply not united by any "model" or "school" or "theory" or "movement". (To pre-empt another possible argument, they are also not united by being the results of genetic research. Doubts about the extreme "migrationism" of the late 19th and early 20th century, were, as you show yourself, common long before genetic evidence became available. Indeed your genetic-oriented sources are from the period before meaningful genetic evidence was available.) There are also other articles for every valid point that can be discussed about the sources you are uniting. Also, as discussed concerning recent articles you tried to create, putting everything else aside it wouldn't make any sense to make separate articles for models (for example the Germanicist extreme "migrationism") and diverse critics of those models [7][8].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but edit down, or merge. I cut out an entirely unsourced piece. If nobody objects, I'll do more editing down to a more manageable size, in the next 48 hours. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And what is your source for the existence of the "Continuity Model of British Ancestry"? We should not have an article about something which does not exist, surely? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take that as an objection. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is an honest question, and has nothing to do with your editing proposal. If there is a source, then maybe I should change my own opinion, which is that the article should be deleted (although there would still be major overlap concerns). Concerning editing the article, the whole idea seems a bit surreal unless we can define some notable topic which this article is about? Right now it is essentially a collection of snippets about different topics which are covered in other articles. Not only is there already an article about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, but even an extra article about the history of debates about it, made recently by the same editor who recently made this one Historiography of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. In the same series of events we also had two more articles created for BOTH sides of the specific continuity migration this article about [9][10]. These now redirect to Migrationism and diffusionism. We also have [[11]]. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes editing would help, thank you for your interest. JASpencer (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source for the term 'continuity model' as it relates to Britain, fwiw. Tewdar 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not-deer

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

Basically WP:FRINGE. The one WP:RS (National Geographic) is a quote from a non-notable podcast author which gives this subject a passing mention. The other three sources are all marginal at best. Skeptical Enquirer is a blog post from a self-described "member of the Church of Satan" who in turn mostly cites "personal communication". A Little Bit Human describes their mission as " to provide bold entertainment content that sparks meaningful conversations". The East Tennessean source is a blog post in a small student paper which in turn cites The Skeptical Enquirer, 4Chan, Reddit, TikTok and Tumblr.

And to top it all off, the "artistic depiction of a not-deer" is by the author of this article, complete with image elements tp make it look like a screenshot from a camera viewfinder.

My own searching comes up with nothing better. RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaotic Enby who marked the page as reviewed. RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article creator. The religious views of a journalist have no bearing on their reliability and the personal communications are all with subject matter experts. ALBH providing entertainment content does not make it unreliable, it has an editorial team. Entertainment news sites with editorial teams are generally considered reliable. And an artistic depiction created by a Wikipedia user is not disallowed, see for example literally every image in Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review. I also don't see how WP:FRINGE applies here since the article does not claim that this cryptid or any other cryptids are actually real. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to list your image at Paleoart review. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would make no sense since it is not paleoart. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This could be transwikified to the Cryptids Wikibook. MediaKyle (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the four sources:

National Geographic does make a passing mention: the only things it mentions is that they live in the Appalachians, and are deer-like in looks but not in behaviors. I don't think the fact that the quote is from a non-notable author matters, as notability and reliability are different things altogether, but the depth is clearly not enough for WP:SIGCOV.
Skeptical Inquirer is marked as "no clear consensus [...], leaning towards reliability" on Wikipedia:New pages patrol source guide. The linked discussion, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 315#Skeptic and Skeptic Inquirer, points out that there is a level of editorial review, but that most of it is left to the authors (submission guidelines). I'd put this one as a borderline source. Also, it does rely on primary quotes, but has a lot of secondary commentary accompanying them.
A Little Bit Human has not been discussed at RSN, and, while they do describe themselves as "our mission to provide bold entertainment content that sparks meaningful conversations", I don't think that's enough to mark them as unreliable. They do appear to have a team of editors and writers, so it might be more solid than Skeptical Enquirer, although I can't say that it is reliable with 100% certainty either.
East Tennessean hasn't been at RSN either, but it does look like they have a level of editorial oversight. The "editorial" category, of which their not-deer article is part, is overseen by a section editor and the executive editor, so it isn't just a blog post, although it still remains a student newspaper.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the top two people listed at https://alittlebithuman.com/about-us/. Allia Luzong describes herself on LinkedIn as "Managing Editor, Lead Social Media Manager, Content Manager, SEO Writer, and then some." Justin Wagner says of himself, "Tasked with editing all content published on the site and ensuring that it follows our style guide, is grammatically correct, and is optimized for SEO. In addition, produced content that aligns with the site's focus, mainly entertainment." Neither of these things say to me "Provides editorial oversight to ensure what we publish is factual". What they say to me is, "If it is likely to generate clicks, we'll publish it". RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, they do have editors, but you don't think they count because you read a brief description of the editors on LinkedIn and decided what their job is actually like based on that. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. RoySmith (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't provided any actual arguments in favor of deletion. The only arguments I've seen are a critique of a journalist's religion, a claim that entertainment news is unreliable (with no evidence to back it up), a claim that illustrations made by Wikipedians are grounds for deletion, and an unexplained invocation of WP:FRINGE when it doesn't apply in any way. None of these are based in policy. If I were you I would retract this deletion request. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Mythology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One look at alittlebithuman.com indicates that it clearly fails WP:RS. A reminder that the very first line of WP:RS reads "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". This site is nothing more than a bunch of listicles and ad space and likely involves more than a little generative AI. Poor "sources" like this need to be removed on sight. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe I'm between weak vs. full delete, but ultimately I just don't see WP:SIGCOV especially in the sources mentioned. NatGeo is the only reliable source, but that's very much passing mention. There's been discussion above on other sources, but even with potential editorial teams, two appear to be more entertainment rather than fact-based, and the student paper/editorial isn't something that would really contribute to notability either. Source-wise I'm just not seeing enough for notability for a made up animal. That said, looking at the article I can see an angle an article could exist in where it's just describing the myth followed by explaining what the mistaken ID could be from, such as a sick deer. If there were better sources, I could see a smaller/stub article existing while sticking closely to WP:FRINGE, but I don't see sources that could support that right now. KoA (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Deer in mythology. I agree with RoySmith's replies to Chaotic Enby's analysis and think this falls short of GNG, although the fringe argument doesn't make sense to me. charlotte ^👸♥ 10:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say fringe doesn't make sense here when we're talking about the cyrptid category of articles. That's a core guideline affecting those articles. It basically means we don't take seriously Bigfoot-esque stuff, but in high profile cases like that one or Loch Ness that do have notability anyways, we do describe the myth as such and how it may have come to be. Not all made up things are going to reach the level of warranting mention in an encyclopedia.

When I mentioned my delete rationale above though, I didn't see anything that would qualify this for a merge in terms of sourcing. A redirect would have slightly better grounding, but even that seems to be a shaky name at best to use as a search term. The deer mythology article doesn't really seem to be a good home either especially for content or even as a target since that's more about deer mythology that either have some degree of WP:GNG or WP:DUE such as traditional or established mythology. This particular article seems to be more of a WP:NEOLOGISM issue for the not-deer name instead:

Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term This one seems to be below that threshold of just being an internet/social media blip rather than a neologism in frequent use that we have good secondary sources on to generate content on regardless of notability. KoA (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this as well 1, and there seems to be some mentions on Google Books, not much tho.★Trekker (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all four sources are (not self-)published and seem to have some level of editorial oversight , and either seem clearly reliable or at least not unreliable. I don't agree that WP:FRINGE is relevant here, I don't see the article lending credence to the myth actually being true, and it also doesn't seem to give WP:UNDUE coverage to those claiming it is. Concur with Artemisia that a newspaper being inclined towards entertainment value doesn't inherently make it unreliable unless we believe that the facts used to create the entertainment value are false. AlexandraAVX (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per significant coverage in Skeptical Inquirer, East Tennessean, and journalnews.com.ph (linked by Trekker). I'm not sure what to make of the last of those sources, the online version of Filipino newspaper People's Journal (mentioned passingly on RSN here). The East Tennessean, a student newspaper, probably has dubious editorial standards, but not none. I'm not so bothered by Skeptical Inquirer, which is a green source in WP:RSP. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Via ProQuest I found [12], which doesn't help. Didn't easily find anything at archive.org, but more digging might give something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "sources" used here are unacceptable and this is a WP:FRIND topic that requires really solid sources. For example, claims of monster sightings, especially when they're being called "cryptids" (a 'sciencey' word from the pseudoscience of cryptozoology) fall under the domain of WP:FRINGE. That said, there is not much to even consider here: If notable, this would be a topic for folklorists but as it stands we don't even have a single quality independent source authored by an expert in folklore (that is a folklorist). The sources we do have are throwaway junk (see for example https://alittlebithuman.com ). Until this receives notable attention from a folklorist and ideally it makes its way through peer review, easy delete. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not promote the fringe theory that cryptids/monsters are real, the article is about the folklore surrounding them. The Skeptical Enquirer source does include claims made by academic folklorists. A peer reviewed study is not necessary for something to be notable. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article from the Skeptical Enquirer mentions sending emails to folklorists, one of which responded and said he had never heard of it. That's the extent of any folklorist involvement at this time. In short, right now this article is propped up by the sourcing equivalent of a broken pencil and a half-chewed eraser. If you want this article to stick around, you need far better sourcing. As a point of advice, if you cannot produce rock-solid sourcing, the wise move is to just wait until you find excellent sourcing or you're just going to receive negative feedback from editors with a lot of experience in these corners. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to a brief summary in deer in mythology (although wow, that article isn't great). i'm in agreement with charlotte that it just barely misses GNG for now, and i'm not thrilled with the quality of the sources. however, i don't find the appeals to FRINGE by roysmith & bloodofox convincing at all. i think this certainly has the potential to become notable as a folklore topic - maybe it should be incubated in userspace until there is some SIGCOV in published academic sources.
edit: upon further thought on the practicalities of a merge & re-reading all the arguments, i'm leaning more towards a redirect to Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures (if Appalachian folklore had its own article i would prefer that as a target, but it is currently a redirect). ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I envy editors such as yourself who have not experienced the depths of Wikipedia's long and unpleasant history with cryptozoology. :bloodofox: (talk) 12:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia's long and unpleasant history with cryptozoology" is completely irrelevant to this specific page and this discussion. Having a grudge against one specific subject doesn't mean that this page itself violates WP:FRINGE. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am the primary editor behind Cryptozoology and many related articles. Nobody has said this page has violated WP:FRINGE but its subject is a fringe topic where WP:FRIND applies and it needs very solid sourcing to survive a delete vote. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i see no reason for comments on any particular individual's experience in the cryptozoology topic. it is unconstructive and irrelevant. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptozoology is the single most relevant article for this topic. If you're working in this space and have not read it, then I suggest you become familiar with the topic before commenting further. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i am pretty familiar with cryptozoology & folklore in general. i have little experience with these topics specifically in relation to wikipedia. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, there's a constant struggle with these articles and that is etting them sourced appropriately with scholars in folklore studies versus whatever media sources or fringe sources pick them up. I've written many related articles and had to delete many others and the sole difference is the question of WP:RS and WP:FRIND, as have several other editors here. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a google scholar search for "not-deer" appalachia folklore pulls up two results from Appalachian Journal which seem promising, although i can't find these articles listed in the contents of any of the relevant volumes of the journal nor can i find access to them anywhere else. not sure what's going on there. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 12:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us the citations? RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I tried searching JSTOR (which does index Appalachian Journal) and couldn't find anything. I tried with and without the hyphen:

RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liles, L. (2023) "Hold Your Head Underwater", Appalachian Journal, 51.
Campbell, O. (2023) "Why We Dance With The Devil In The Cold Moonlight-Cause He's There!" Appalachian Journal, 51.

both have the same preview text on google scholar: "… stories about what to Appalachians-and only the Appalachians- do when you meet the Devil
or the not-deer… underscoring the sense for sure." in the Appalachians that nature is incredibly …"
it may be subsections of a single article, but i'm not sure which one - https://appjournal.appstate.edu/issues/volume-51-no-1-2 ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this link works if you're logged in to the WP-library:[13] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i did try to look on EBSCO via the library, but it didn't work right for me. weird ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appalachian Journal. Fall2023/Winter2024, Vol. 51 Issue 1/2, p18 has a brief mention, referenced to this book:[14], which appears WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that'll be what it is, surely. seems a passing mention of a SPS in a good source... dead end. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 13:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book A Guide to Sky Monsters : Thunderbirds, the Jersey Devil, Mothman, and Other Flying Cryptids mentions the Mising, "sometimes described as a deerlike creature with wings." Not close enough, I fear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, it appears that there are enough sources to retain the information, whether as its own page or as part of another page relating to cryptozoology or deer mythology. I advocate for a standalone page or a unique Not-Deer heading on another page in order to more easily find this article via search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulson Lives (talk • contribs) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Coulson Lives I'm curious: this is the first edit you've made in a 1.5 years. Is this being discussed somewhere else which drew your attention? RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I'm not aware of any campaigns to keep this page open, if that is what you're asking. Though, that doesn't mean that a campaign does not exist somewhere.

I heard about the Not-Deer cryptid earlier today and wanted to research it. Wikipedia is my go-to; even though I haven't edited in a while, I use Wikipedia at least once a day. I find that Wikipedia does a good job condensing information across multiple sources and distilling the information into an easy to navigate source. So, I guess that's another reason why I want to keep this page, rather than lose the information forever. Coulson Lives (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NatGeo has a brief trivial mention. Of the sources that discuss this topic in greater depth, the East Tennessean is a student newspaper from ETSU, A Little Bit Human appears to be an SEO-driven bloggy site, and Skeptical Inquirer appears more solid, but the article on the not-deer is from a blog within the SI site, so editorial oversight is unclear. Of the three, the East Tennesseean and A Little Bit Human are basically regurgitating chatter on discussion boards. I'm basically convinced by others that for WP:FRINGE topics like cryptozoology, much stronger reliable sourcing is required than what we have here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't look to me like this is likely to end in a consensus for keep or delete. Is there a WP:ATD folks can agree on? Is sawyer's Folklore of the United States#Legendary and folkloric creatures suggestion a good target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as an WP:ATD given that there is no agreement here on the reliability of most of the sources or if WP:FRINGE applies and that the article is relatively new. On the understanding that if this article is to go back to mainspace at some point that it be through WP:AFC. TarnishedPath^talk 00:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak delete~~ : A very likely non-existent creature that doesn't seem to have coverage in RS. This [15] and [16] are about the only two sources that aren't in the article. I wouldn't consider either one a RS. If we had a description in a book talking about cryptids, I'd likely change my vote. Can't all be the Loch Ness monster I suppose; that level of coverage is an exception for these types of "things" Oaktree b (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep This [17] and [18], second one is probably enough. Very week keep, but that's that. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these are WP:RS. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[19] isn't obviously SPS. The other seems way too in-universe. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less notable than your average Pokémon character. 12.75.41.118 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very bizarre and unconvincing argument. I thought Wikipedia:Pokémon test hasn't been invoked since 2007 lol. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should invoke the Karen test as well. Oaktree b (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole AfD has been a festival of bizarre and unconvincing arguments. The threshold for being a reliable source is not any of:

(not self-)published and seem to have some level of editorial oversight
probably has dubious editorial standards, but not none
isn't obviously SPS

It is a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. RoySmith (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]