Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

26 December 2024
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 25	December 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [1] [2] [3], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (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 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is any support for the suggested Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Paltalk: The Peerstream site now simply redirects to the Paltalk investor site and I am not seeing mention of Peerstream as a continuing product (though the main Paltalk site's Products link attempts a redirect to Peerstream). Whether as a company or a product, I don't see Peerstream as having attained notability, but a redirect could be a history-preserving ATD. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like WP:PROMO for their software products. The drawn-out history behind this article's past removals is also inculpatory. If someone has a solid case for a merge I see no problem with that, but if it were solely me I'd go with a deletion in these circumstances.

Polophylax (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brünnhilde (cat)

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

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. It has non-trivial coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Library of Congress Magazine (November/December 2020), p. 11. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [4] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [5]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like a bunch of random crap. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. E_F⁵ 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to LOC curator Anne Wilkes Tucker, they looked at a million photos, isolated 4000 from that set, and then selected 440 for the exhibition. The process took several years, with the end result reflecting the visual history of America. This particular photo of a cat was chosen for its "whimsical" nature. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the exhibition in Los Angeles (Rogers, John, April 21, 2018, Library of Congress brings America to life in LA photo show, AP) the photo is important in American culture because it represents an early example of the "funny cat picture" from 1936. Photo curator Beverly Brannan told the AP: "Around the turn of the century, in the early 19-somethings, people liked to make pictures of cats and dogs, putting them at tea tables with dolls, putting clothes on them". Rogers writes that the photo reveals "that at least one aspect of photography hasn't changed much in 150 years". Steve Appleford covered the exhibition in a bit more detail for the Los Angeles Times, going into the backstory of the exhibition, why Tucker chose the cat photo (it made her laugh). A year later, Douglas Perry of The Oregonian included the image of Brünnhilde in his May 2019 article about early historical photos of cats in America, referring to it as part of a select set of "memorable American cat images". Mark Jenkins reviewed the exhibition for The Washington Post in April 2022 and highlighted the significance of the selection of these particular images, representing 440 of the total collection of 15 million in the LOC. Is the image notable outside this exhibition? Unlikely, but it achieved notability by being included in it and being described as an early, pre-internet example of what eventually became known as the Cats and the Internet phenomenon. What's unusual, is that we have no coverage of the early 20th century practice of dressing cats up in photos that Brannan told the AP about, and yet here it is and people want to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both whimsical cat photos, and famous cats, are ubiquitous now and are unquestionably part of our online culture. Brünnhilde is an early example and is significant for that reason. Wikipedia features an article about the oldest surviving photograph even though it is not really significant except for that. Wikipedia also has an article for Morris the Cat, who is unexceptional apart from also being a famous cat. --WillisBlackburn (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of subject where I'm inclined to err on the side of weak keep, but a suggestion for Di (they-them): whip up a quick article for Not an Ostrich, which is much more solidly notable, and merge this into a dedicated section of that article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism

AfDs for this article:

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

Something of a procedural AfD. Article was subject to a delete !vote in 2014 but, irregularly, was turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. I say this was irregular because "redirect" was not the closer's notes. However this led to the eventual forking off of the present version of the page from the surviving redirect. I am personally neutral about whether to delete this article but felt an AfD would be an appropriate way of ascertaining present community consensus regarding how to handle it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's interesting to note that there are quite a few references to "progressive conservatism" on JStor - but not with regard to the Canadian political ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise Google Books has reference to "progressive conservatism" in the comtext of US, UK and Japanese politics but, again, not in Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the page contains original research and SYNTH, that is not a reason for deletion, at least not on its own (there are exceptions like WP:TNT for a completely unsalvageable page, which does seem to be the reason it was deleted 10 years ago). As the nominator demonstrated in their comment above, sources are out there to demonstrate the subject is notable, and notability requirements do not require that said sources are in the current version of the article. Can the page be made better? Absolutely. But there are no valid reasons for deletion presented here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to mention that the procedural reasons in the nom comments do not seem to be completely accurate (and even if they were, nominating a page for deletion because that's what the consensus was more than a full decade ago is strange to say the least).

This seems to be the sequence of events:

Ten years ago, this page was nominated for deletion and closed as delete. The day after, the page was made as a redirect. I get that one could say that's technically not what the consensus asked for, but there did not seem to be any prejudice against the redirect existing. At first, Progressive conservatism was a redirect to Progressive Conservative Party. At some point, it became a redirect to Compassionate conservatism.
2 years later, this redirect was discussed, a discussion where a possible outcome was deleting the redirect. Instead, the redirect was changed to Progressive Conservative, a disambiguation page.
2 more years later (2018), an editor again began the process of fleshing it back out into an article, something they very much had the right to do and was not in any way defying the years-old consensuses from the 2014 AfD and 2016 RfD.

Consensus does not last forever, nor does prejudice against recreation. Usually, 6 months is the amount of time editors are expected to wait before either renominating a kept page or recreating a deleted page. There's no official amount of time, but half a year seems to be the norm. This page was recreated 4 years after the deletion discussion, and has existed for the last six. The article has undergone sporadic development ever since then. Bringing it back to AfD in 2024 on the basis that the result of the 2014 AfD wasn't properly upheld is bizarre. There's no procedural need to have this discussion again, and without any WP:Reasons for deletion, it feels a little silly.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly aware that consensus doesn't last forever. However we had an article that was not deleted when it should have been. I felt sounding out the current consensus via an AfD would make sure we knew whether it should exist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is well sourced, well written, and covers a topic which is present across multiple countries and time periods, and which is, as far as I know, not covered by sections of any other articles. Rares Kosa (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the details of how to delete articles, but the bottom line issue about this article is the following: is there a a single subject of "Progressive conservatism" that this article is talking about or is this article showing multiple subjects put together on the assumption that there is a single subject called "Progressive conservatism"?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tolgos

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The only attempt at a notability claim here is that he served as governor of a county, but that represents the local level of government in his country, not the state or provincial level of government -- which means he isn't "inherently" notable under NPOL #1 just for existing, and would have to be shown to pass NPOL #2 on a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him and his work. But this is referenced to one primary source that isn't support for notability at all, and one short blurb that briefly namechecks him in the process of being principally about his wife rather than him.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more reliable source coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kenya. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand, Kenya devolved from a provincial government into county level government. The subject was in the first generation of such local government leaders. There might be some interesting sources of the transition that could help source, but right now, we have virtually nothing. Bearian (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there are sources to establish that the subject was elected as the governor of the county, then it is clearcut notable. Counties equals to states in countries such as US or Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are sources that establish that he served as the governor of the new state but I trust The Nairaobi Star more to confirm his candidacy and winning. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC) It appears I was wrong. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL since Kenya is a unitary and not federalized state. Local governors only meet NPOL in federalized nations. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Death's Head

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

Fails WP:GNG article is almost all list of apperences + plot summary. Very limited devolpement info and no reception best I could found was this [6] everything else was related to him getting a toy Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm expecting you to actually engage, but what exactly is wrong with Starburst and Amazing Heroes as sources? Beyond them not showing up when you mash words into Google? Not doing any digging until someone lays out what exactly is wrong with the sourcing present, because at the moment it looks like yet another I Don't Like It nomination from this editor. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever list of fictional characters from his most relevant franchise is. Pure plot summary and least of appearances - fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTPLOT, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:FANCRUFT... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: D in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a lot of publication history that goes beyond just plot summaries. The article is sourced to Wizard, Bleeding Cool, Amazing Heroes, and Starburst. If either the nature of the publications or the nature of the coverage is not adequate to establish notability, that should be demonstrated here before merging into the list. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That, to be honest, is the nub of my dissatisfaction with this nomination. Those four sources have been considered reliable for plenty of comic articles I've submitted that have been approved as new articles, as have others I believe to have more detail that would help with this article (JDM, Slings & Arrows, Crikey!, possibly even Speakeasy or Back Issue), and generally seem to be considered strong specialist sources. I would like to hear why those sources aren't considered reliable and/or worthy of even consideration before I bother sourcing anything else as it they are somehow suddenly not good enough basically anything else featuring comics is also going to be. And that is going to call the notability of a number of articles I've built around similar sourcing into question, so we might as well nominate all of those and get this shit done. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A brief overview of the avalible sources
  Starburst: Interview doenst count for notability
  
  Bleeding Cool 1: Just a recap of appearances
  
  Bleeding Cool 2: "x posted a tweet about y"
  
  Bleeding Cool 3: Literally just one passing mention
  
  Amazing Heroes: Seems decent
  
  Wizard: Cant tell as its not on the web but by the title it seems like its talking about Marvel UK and not the character.
  
  Comic Book Resources: Another passing meniton of a different Death's Hand character.
  
  If you can WP:HAY this than by all means go ahead but I cant find anything else usable for notability Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you dismissing a source that you haven't actually read? That and your begruding acceptance of Amazing Heroes goes to show that your before was entirely online. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. From memory, my re-write was performed largely using sources that had cropped up on another semi-related project, and was likely directed at sourcing up what was already there and possibly removing bald inaccuracies; as the article wasn't new it was never meant to be a finished, definite work (and not just because that's not how Wikipedia should work). As such I believe my decision to not write a "Reception" section was down to choice as I probably moved back to what I was 'meant' to be doing, rather than there being a lack of any material that could be used. As said, there are likely review sources of both character and selected appearances out there, just probably not on Google. I say this every time someone does a web-based before, but there are always some who choose to ignore it - a lot of decent specialist resources are not online, at least not in an easily-searchable format. But I am not pulling physical media from storage four days before Christmas if someone somewhere has just decided specialist publications don't count anymore. Once again though, this is a nomination of an article that just needs work but will likely get deleted because AfD is a broken system and you all just like deleting things. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(personally I'd have centred the article around the publication with the development of the character and guest appearances as background and DHII as a separate article along the same lines, and probably left it unfinished with thoughts of going back one day, but there's no point in doing that at this juncture either until someone finishes deciding on the magic list of reliable sources) BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Without anything other than primary and unreliable sources, there is nothing to keep here. Jontesta (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are unreliable? Some may or may confer notability, but I'd be interested to hear which are unreliable. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus. But if this article has a Redirect or Merge outcome, is List of Marvel Comics characters: D an acceptable target article/section?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If (ha, joking, when) the article is redirected to the increasingly unwieldy, poorly sourced, hard to edit and hard to read character list which editor is going to compressing and rewriting it to be an appropriate level of detail? Or is it just going to be the usual "Redirect and leave it to someone else at some point probably"? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1972 Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships. FromCzech (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All to Czechoslovak Figure Skating Championships per FromCzech. WikiCleanerMan's statement is also correct. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Whidborne

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has had multiple articles written about him on the daily post such as [7] and [8]. Also at Oxford Mail [9]. There is also a short article on the BBC [10]. I think this article subject is worth taking a close look at. I will look further when I have more time before casting a keep/delete vote.Canary757 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with addition of new reference below.Canary757 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources provided above, which each provide coverage about the subject, there is also [[11]], which allows for WP:NBASIC to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough non-routine IRS SIGCOV directly on Whidborne. The Leader article has barely two sentences on him individually—the rest is either general background on the pair's junior ice skating performance or in quotes—and the Daily Post announcements combined have about one sentence directly on him. The Oxford Mail article is routine coverage of, again, the pair, and additionally fails WP:YOUNGATH. The BBC press release is three sentences, with Josh Whidborne, 18, from Wheatley took the senior title being the extent of coverage of Whidborne, thus failing 3/4 GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per new citations that were found by Canary757 and Let'srun, notability is established and WP:NBASIC met.Shinadamina (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources. I reject JoelleJay's innacurate analysis of some of the sources. The two Daily Post articles each have a few paragraphs of SIGCOV about Whidborne's doubles skating career. The fact that the majority of this coverage is about Whidborne as part of a duet and not about him individually does not invalidate it in terms of GNG elegibility. The Leader article offers a more in-depth profile which can easily count toward GNG. The Oxford Mail piece also adds sigcov but JoelleJay correctly brings up YOUNGATH concerns as this was local coverage of the subject as a minor (with the other sources I mentioned, this one is not needed to establish GNG is met). Frank Anchor 20:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Aiken

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, once the reliable sources below are added. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to add anything to this article. The same people pop up on these AFD's, squawk about how someone having their picture taken for their local newspaper qualifies as "significant coverage", and then the article is left in the same crappy condition it was when we started. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly just pics. Nice to see our fellow editors WP:Assume good faith. JTtheOG (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As we've seen dozens of times by now, the nominator inexplicably refuses to address any actual coverage of the subject, who seems to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per sources from JTtheOG.Canary757 (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JTtheOG's sources. pburka (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources uncovered by JTtheOG contain the needed coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC. It doesn't matter if those souces are immediately added to the article, as there is WP:NORUSH. Let'srun (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a couple of the sources to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:NSKATE#1, won a bronze medal at the 2012 Ondrej Nepala Memorial (international senior-level tournament). Plus the sources provided here qualifies GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:SNOW‎. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Santiago (meme character)

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

Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. This seems very weak on sourcing and notability. Geschichte (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails the WP:GNG. Not a single source present is reliable, let alone significant coverage. Sources entirely to fansites, social media, YouTube, Wikipedia itself, and other sorts of unreliable WP:USERG type sources. Sergecross73 msg me 23:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It it effectively community ran, the creator has also deleted their account, so it is hard to source much, one of the big sources I used was from a YouTube short "documentary", and the character made an official reference in a game, and a few of my citations were even from a writer of the Sonic comics...

I also used the main fan wiki etc. This is not worth deleting, it's a decent page, any "problems" can also be fixed with user contributions, which there will be more than a few. Charliephere (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "hard to source much", then it doesn't meet the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. That said, this cannot be fixed simply by passerby users. I don't believe the subject has any GNG-satisfying coverage by third party reliable sources. Think websites like IGN or Eurogamer writing dedicated stories about Santiago. They simply don't exist, because it never happened. Sergecross73 msg me 23:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No reliable sourcing on a non-notable meme. This honestly should have just been speedied given everything regarding this article. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find any reliable, secondary sources even mentioning the subject. Woodroar (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, completely non-notable. λ NegativeMP1 23:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources or significant coverage ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per above. No reliable sources. Madeleine (talk) 01:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources contributing to notability, and one of them is even a YouTube comment. That's a new one. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources given is unreliable and the whole article is bunch of WP:FANCRUFT. Quick search on google news and google books reveals no result. Also I just love how he sourced a comment with no likes Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hope of attaining WP:GNG as there's no WP:RS - just WP:USERG here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A really committed and serious effort to write an article about a humorously non-notable joke. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

2002 Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships

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

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

Very similar articles that were nominated in this Afd. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Skating. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My only hesitation in nominating the individual articles of this series was the number of notable skaters who competed in these events. The proportion of notable v. non-notable skaters was much higher for Ukraine than the other countries which I did nominate. I'm not disputing your rationale, and they probably should be deleted too, but I am just explaining why I didn't nominate them myself. Recommend redirect to Ukrainian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ExonHost

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

Sources are looking like PR peaces, which only promotes the subject, no independent reliable sources found with in-depth coverage of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have had the same issues finding RS, and original article was fairly promotional (although it looks like it has been trimmed since) ASUKITE 21:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added independent sources. Then why you think this is promotional? RanojitKumar (talk) 12:02, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE — It's already been said before but it remains an important point, the article simply fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There is a complete lack of significant, independent and reliable coverage from RS. The article relies on either primary sources (like its own site) or local Bangladeshi media outlets which come across as paid promotional PR pieces. I have not been able to find any RS either; for the company's current name or one of its three previous names. WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The references provided fail to demonstrate significant or independent reporting about the company. Without substantial, independent coverage from reputable secondary sources, the subject fails to meet WP:GNG.

The only possible notable thing about the subject seems to be that it is a ICANN accredited registrar. Though, while ICANN accreditation is a notable achievement within the web hosting industry, it does not, by itself, confer notability under WP standards. ICANN accredits hundreds of registrars. Inclusion on the ICANN registrar list does not inherently demonstrate encyclopedic value and so unless substantial independent and reliable sources with significant coverage is added, the article does not qualify for inclusion at this time and should therefore be deleted.

~~~~ Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 01:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.channelionline.com/দুই-তরুণের-এক্সনহোস্ট/

https://www.jagonews24.com/technology/news/185755

Those two articles from popular and verified Bangladeshi online news portal. I added much of them. Also I added WordCamp's links.

Don't they are enough for references? RanojitKumar (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the added sources, such as the article from Jagonews24 and the piece from Future Startup or even the one from Channeli Online, do not constitute reliable, independent coverage as required by WP:RS. These sources exhibit characteristics of puff pieces or press releases and fail to provide significant, in-depth analysis of the subject. The article in Jagonews24 seems like a press release. The one in Future Startup seems very promotional with grammatical errors and superficial coverage. It focuses on the founder’s ambitions rather than any substantial achievements or impact by the actual company.

Promotional or primary sources (like the company's own website or blogs related to WordPress sponsorships) cannot be used to establish notability under WP:IS. While we are on the topic of the sponsorships, the ExonHost article now prominently features ExonHost's sponsorship of WordCamp events, presenting it as evidence of notability. However, this inclusion is misleading for several reasons:

Sponsorship of WordCamp events does not confer significance or notability, as WordCamp allows any company to sponsor events by paying very small fees. For example, ExonHost's bronze sponsorship at WordCamp Kanpur 2017 required just $180 U.S. Dollars (source: WordCamp Kanpur Sponsorship Details);
Presenting these sponsorships as a key component of the company's achievements just inflates its importance and contributes to a promotional tone.

The article still leans heavily on primary sources, including the company's own website and affiliated blogs (like the WordCamp event pages). The article fails to provide significant independent coverage to counterbalance its reliance on promotional material.

That is only one part of the issue. An even bigger one is the fact that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP and WP:GNG as pointed out by myself and other contributors. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 12:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. References such as Future Startup is an interview, Wordcamp is sponsored Mysecretgarden (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This company is based in Bangladesh, and its operations are centred there. Aren't articles from reputable Bangladeshi news portals sufficient to verify its notability or serve as independent sources? It's unlikely that international media like The New York Times or other global outlets would cover a company that primarily caters to the Bangladeshi market. If leading Bangladeshi news portals have provided coverage, why wouldn't that be enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? RanojitKumar (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article not having sufficient reliable sources. Seminita (talk) 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define reliability? Channel I and JagoNews are widely recognised as credible and authentic sources within Bangladeshi news media. RanojitKumar (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Valley2city (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Kirste

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

An article about a living person without references. A proper way would be to go via BLP-PROD, but some references were previously in the article and were removed, so that I decided to try going here. Apparently the article was created and mainly written by a COI editor, and then almost everything was removed. Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was the only source i could find [12], not enough for notability. The lack of any extensive prose in the article (in this or prior versions) is not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That citation is an interview in a self-published book (Books on Demand) by the filmmaker for whom he acted as a camera man. It's a primary source, and a COI source, it does not count towards notability. Netherzone (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding that this cinematographer is notable per WP:GNG nor WP:CREATIVE. A BEFORE search finds only his Flickr uploads, LinkedIn, Facebook, IMDb, Instagram and other user-submitted social-media type hits and a couple hits for another person with the same name who is an academic. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails notability guidelines. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dreams Mall

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

No secondary reliable sources found which provides SIGCOV coverage of the subject, currently cited sources are primary. GrabUp - Talk 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Kerala. GrabUp - Talk 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Navy Medical College, Chattogram

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. GrabUp - Talk 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - delete BakerStMD 20:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any references in English at this time. Potential recreation from an article written on the Bengali Wikipedia at some point if that comes to exist, but for now this subject does not meet notability standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject does not seem notable and does not have any news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found no WP:SIGCOV in any sources that I found about the school. Tgvarrt (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Schulz

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No SIGCOV found.Canary757 (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:RS citations and does not qualify under WP:GNG.Go4thProsper (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Mistelbauer

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV found. Google Books seems to only produce false positives. Even Google Search does not produce much, instead other people of the same name, an auditor, a hotel manager, a chef... starship.paint (talk / cont) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV found.Canary757 (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this BLP. Let'srun (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For all the reasons stated above.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thy Kingdom Come (Transformation Worship album)

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM; I am unable to find any in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformation Worship: I also failed to find coverage, including in the Christian sources listed as RSMUSIC. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 20:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformation Worship, per QuietHere, as an alternative to deletion. I also can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Charting on a niche/genre chart does not meet the criteria for WP:NALBUM, which refers to the primary music chart for a country. The creator of the article seems to be on a mission to create articles for every Christian music album, despite having WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM and the requirements for significant coverage pointed out to them on several occasions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Transformation Worship: per nom Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Transformation Worship: I can't find any sources that could be suitable for this article. Tgvarrt (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996–97 Australian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Australian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Australian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all all unreferenced and fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough need more sources. Tgvarrt (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Beckingham

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the others. Doesn’t meet GNG or RS requirements. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Dodds

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy call. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:RS guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG.Canary757 (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaimee Nobbs

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the other skaters nominated here. They don’t meet the requirements and haven’t achieved significant RS coverage. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turned up zero secondary sources which could be used to meet the WP:GNG here. Please ping me if sources showing possible WP:SIGCOV are uncovered. Let'srun (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with long left leg

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

Probably does not pass GNG; no significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least please consider a 'redirect (at least two obvious targets) -Mushy Yank. 01:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Belgian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Belgian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Belgium. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Belgian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per above. It's even questionable whether the parent article is notable when there are so few competitors. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Pulver

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

I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from third-party sources for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, California, Colorado, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 09:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It's well sourced, it just may be Wikipedia: Too soon. RossEvans19 23:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are enough secondary-party sources involved, from The Daily Evergreen, The Spokesman-Review, and Lewiston Morning Tribune. [13][14][15][16] Whether that's enough sigcov in combination per WP:BASIC is another story, but certainly no need for third-party sources here per GNG. There is otherwise coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, so per WP:SPORTBASIC it's likely there are enough sources for notability, even if not a guarantee. If it's a case of too soon then WP:DRAFTIFY would be a better option here. CNC (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party sources are a requirement for GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Daily Evergreen is not independent and so does not count. The Spokesman-Review and Lewiston Morning Tribune articles are brief, routine blurbs about her signing lightly refactored (as in, would absolutely fail our close-paraphrasing rules) from the same press release, and additionally are far from the SPORTSCRIT #5 requirement, let alone the SUSTAINED SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources required by GNG. I see zero reason to draftify considering her contract ended in 2022 and there is no evidence she continues to play professionally. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, per above I mixed up third-party with tertiary, ie party and person. Agree the student newspaper isn't independent here, and given your reasoning that the subject hasn't been playing since 2022, best to redirect instead. CNC (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players : Agree with JoelleJay that this subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources needed to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Norwegian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Norway. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Norwegian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable. Never had a single source since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per above. It's even questionable whether the parent article is notable when there are so few competitors. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Not a sport with a substantial following or coverage. Geschichte (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships: None of these events appear to meet the relevant guidelines, namely the WP:GNG. Redirect as a suitable WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Norwegian Figure Skating Championships: per Let'srun's sugesstion; I agree with that. Also, on the redirected page, create a table of it (year, dates, location, 1st medalist, 2nd medalist, 3rd medalist, references if) for men and women. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those tables are already in place. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doom Patrol enemies

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Doom Patrol article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. There is nothing here to preserve that isn't covered at the main article (not to mention other villain group articles like Brotherhood of Evil or Brotherhood of Dada). The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the enemies section of Doom Patrol in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of James Bond villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series, which is also questionably sourced and possibly WP:OR. This article is almost completely unsourced and there is nothing to preserve that hasn't already been covered at similar articles, including List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series and the mentions in List of James Bond films. Wikipedia implores us to not endlessly make new splits of the similar topics based on WP:SYNTH and arbitrary scope. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one , or Merge the two - This 2004 list has only one source, which is a now-dead link from 2008 USA Today. Prefer we keep the 2009 List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series; much more informative and has 24 varied sources. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification comment. Suggest either delete one, or merge one into the other. We don't need two lists doing the same thing. This is not about whether or not Bond characters have been listed/covered. Both lists do that, to one degree or another. This is about list duplication, and which one is the most accurate and most within Wikipedia standards to do so. — Maile (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: the subject has been covered as a set in reliable sources so that the list meets WP:NLIST -Mushy Yank. 00:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources include: Ian Fleming and James Bond:The Cultural Politics of 007; The Terrible Fitzball:The Melodramatist of the Macabre and plenty of other books. And plenty of articles including https://metro.co.uk/2014/12/04/weve-been-expecting-you-the-top-41-james-bond-villains-from-worst-to-best-4972989/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/11089346/Top-ten-James-Bond-villains-in-pictures.html etc, -Mushy Yank. 01:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the following sources:

Kavanagh, C., Cavanna, A. (2020). James Bond villains and psychopathy: A literary analysis. Journal of Psychopathology, 26(4), 273-283 [10.36148/2284-0249-351]. link

Grandy, C. (2014). The shape of villainy: Profiteering and money-men. In Heroes and happy endings: Class, gender, and nation in popular film and fiction in interwar Britain (pp. 83-132). Manchester: Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526111210.00010 (note: not able to access full view of this)

DiLeo, M. (2002). The Spy who Thrilled Us: A Guide to the Best of the Cinematic James Bond. Hal Leonard Corporation. Though just snippet view, this book includes multiple pages on how Bond villains attempt to kill Bond and fail.

Hall, J. (2017, May 24). All 104 James Bond Villains, Ranked. Esquire. link

Huver, S. (2023, September 6). The top 25 James Bond villains, ranked. AV Club. link

Ultimately "Bond villain" is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization, but a topic that's talked about and written about in the popular and scholarly press. Jclemens (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others citing WP:NLIST. In addition to the above, I found these:

Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Pretty obvious that "Bond villains" are discussed as a set. Toughpigs (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided above. It does appear that James Bond's villians are often discussed as a group, which makes the list meet WP:NLIST. Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN due to being notable as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ibis the Invincible enemies

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

This is complete unsourced. The main article Ibis the Invincible is notable but Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split new articles if it would fail the general notability criteria and specific notability criteria for their topic. There is nothing to preserve, and for those who disagree, any fixes can occur at the main Ibis the Invincible article. Jontesta (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced list that is almost entirely made up of minor, one-shot characters. Searches are not showing any kind of sources that would support or justify a spinout character list, let alone a specific enemies list, for Ibis. Rorshacma (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the enemies section of Ibis the Invincible in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sooko Deji Ajomale-Mcword

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

All the sources fail WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV cannot be established. A Nigerian figure in sports, tourism and diplomacy... and yet nothing to establish his notability cannot be found online Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Golf. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources available are majorly interviews or a reprint of what the subject said. I’m not particularly certain that the awards won helps to establish ANYBIO. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: do, a quick search revealed little that could contribute to notoriety. Therefore, I think it should be removed. WP:GNG fails. Tgvarrt (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither (short story)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; unsourced DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this the same text that served as libretto for Morton Feldman's 1977 "anti-opera" Neither? (See also [17], ~~[18]~~[19].) That would probably establish mild notability (or at least notoriousness) and be grounds for a Merge instead of a Delete. – Tea2min (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neither (opera). Yes, as Tea2min says, Neither is not a short story but rather a libretto written for Feldman's 1977 opera. Most scholarly analysis and commentary is in the context of the combined work rather than the Beckett text in isolation, so a merge is appropriate. Significant coverage includes the following:

Laws, Catherine (1998). "Morton Feldman's Neither: A Musical Translation of Beckett's Text". In Bryden, Mary (ed.). Samuel Beckett and Music. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–86. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198184270.003.0005.
Tubridy, Derval (2020). "Beckett, Feldman, Salcedo... Neither". In Caselli, Daniela (ed.). Beckett and Nothing: Trying to Understand Beckett. Manchester University Press. pp. 43–159.
Laws, Catherine (2017). "Feldman – Beckett – Johns: Patterning, Memory and Subjectivity". In Heile, Björn (ed.). The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music. Taylor & Francis. pp. The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music.

Jfire (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miz Ima Starr

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

WP:BLP of a cabaret performer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for performers. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement sourced to a WP:GNG-worthy depth and volume of third-party coverage in reliable sources -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that Miz Ima Starr exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to event calendar listings and the self-published websites of venues where she's performed, which aren't support for notability. The only potentially decent source is one newspaper article that is paywalled even in the Wayback Machine archiving link (meaning I can't actually read it to determine if it supports a meaningful notability claim or not), and isn't enough to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only GNG-worthy source she's got.
I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Australian and New Zealand media than I've got can find enough proper GNG-worthy coverage to salvage it, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Australia, and New Zealand. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, @Bearcat, that as it stands, it doesn't meet the GNG with reliable and accessible sources.

I had a look at the NZ media and I have found one piece in the PastPaper archive, I haven't been successful finding anything through the NZHerald or Stuff. I have found a passing mention to the Australia's Got Talent semi-finals in a journal article in the European Journal of Cultural Studies here, and a couple of other articles from the Australian Arts Review, Star Observer, and an interview with Joy Media, that I don't see currently referenced in the article. There is also some archival media coverage that I cannot access, such as this. Lastly, there is an IMDB page that has the films produced/directed - although I believe this is a disputed use of this source on Wikipedia, so might be best avoided.

I am not sure whether this will be enough to meet GNG but I am happy to contribute to rewriting and adding these references, if that would help it meet it. Ewhite31 (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references appear to be secondary and provide significant coverage.

I did find one reference that provides that but I don't believe it is reliable enough for a BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Likely PROMO or COI. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. At best this article is written WP:TOOSOON. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Selnar

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

Selnar has never played at professional level and mostly spends his career in lower leagues so far. Regarding secondary sources, I found Czech Radio and Deník, neither of which cover him in-depth. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has been playing his entire career in fully professional clubs, in fully professional competition, so the first sentence of the nomination is misleading. FromCzech (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I meant he never played in Czech First League, which I thought was the only professional league. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I schools that have never sponsored football

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete‎. Fails WP:NLIST as there is no WP:SIGCOV of these entities as a group. Willing to reconsider if such coverage is made available, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 15:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of NCAA Division I non-football programs which already includes most of the information included within this nominated article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tzameret Fuerst

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

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Israel, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on Fuerst's page are terrible, and it's unclear if she meets WP:NBIO. However, her startup Circ MedTech absolutely meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in New York Times, Haaretz, Tablet, VoA, Times of Israel, NoCamels, Reuters, among others. I'll go ahead and create Circ MedTech, and propose we redirect Fuerst to Circ MedTech. Longhornsg (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) 05:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please note and check that the start up got raft of criticism, allegedly unproven scientific benefits. It is mentioned briefly in the book "Thou Shalt Innovate" by Avi Jorisch, pp. 190-191, the book dedicated to the start up 33 words, the book discuss the greatest innovations that came out of Israel. And guess what ? Tzameret Fuerst not mentioned there, but the three founders of the company mentioned there. It is not her Start-Up, she was married to one of the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC7:50E:22C2:778:5634:1232:5476 (talk)

Sam Ifeanyi Hart

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

Serving as the Director-General of a non notable organisation and being a special adviser to the governor does not meet the criteria for a politician. The sources are either press releases like this, this, this and this or pass mentioned like this and this. Therefore, all the sources cannot count toward WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable lawyer. Working with the gov't isn't notable, nor is much else I see in the article. I can't find sourcing either. This reads as a CV, an attempt at PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Working PR man, lawyer. Sources does not show that it they meet the general notability criteria nor is the criteria for politicians applicable here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability of any kind here. No WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Zuiderwijk

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Netherlands. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Procyon117 (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Three paragraphs of coverage here [[20]], and a brief mention at [[21]]. Not seeing enough here for a WP:GNG pass right now. Let'srun (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletons (Wednesday 13 album)

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

Sources on page are no good, one being the artist's website and the other being an AllMusic page with no published review or rating. And I couldn't find any additional reliable coverage, not even the Kerrang! review which the article suggests exists (though I wouldn't doubt that it does and just isn't archived). But even so, Kerrang! alone would not save this article, and I haven't seen coverage which would. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I got incidentally involved with this while doing some work on the list of 2008 albums article. After I removed an unreliable source for this album there, the entry as a whole was challenged. A couple casual searches didn't find decent sourcing apart from a review by High Voltage Magazine (incidentally, HVM might be an AfD candidate), and my restoration was reverted, and I was referred to this AfD. I was thinking that this probably was a good AfD candidate, but after a more comprehensive search, I'd now say definitely keep. In addition to the possible Kerrang! review, there's reviews by Metal Hammer Germany [22], Metal.de [23], and (albeit less impressively) MetalFan.nl.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note that 3family6 added Metal.de to RSMUSIC without any prior discussion, but it was removed right after with a request that such a discussion be had first. 3family6 did start that discussion here, but it has not received any responses yet. There is a good case being made there, but I haven't looked into it myself and can't speak to the source beyond that. All this to say that source's reliability is still an open question, and if it were rejected then that would leave us at just (presumably, if someone can find the Kerrang! review) two reliable sources, which I think is too thin a margin to pass this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair to disclose. I will make clear that I've used this source for years, as have many others, and it has never been challenged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reliability of the source wasn't questioned, rather my unilateral addition to it to the reliable sources list without discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere, it looks like consensus is that Metal.de is reliable, and the editor who challenged the addition did so more out of wanting to make sure that there is discussion. Caveat that participation so far in the discussion has been fairly minimal.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right about that. However, I don't think that alone resolves the matter of this album's notability. We still only have two confirmed reliable sources, metal.de and Metal Hammer, and the assumption that the Kerrang! review is out there somewhere. I'm not convinced that that's enough. If nobody else is going to participate in this discussion, I'd rather it close as no consensus as to not discourage other editors from renominating it. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 15:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wednesday 13: not finding enough to merit a separate article, but would suggest redirect as alternative to deletion. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to say above but I also support this redirect. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Matei

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just barely misses out on WP:NSKATE, but more importantly I could not find any coverage in secondary sources. Toadspike [Talk] 14:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Toadspike. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balint Miklos

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE ASAP. Zero sourcing. Does not at all prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability and significant coverage criterias.

Shrug02 (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

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

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the director's article. The refs only talk about the movie in passing while speaking of the director. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the BuzzFeed list article is not significant or from a reliable source, the Hollywood Reporter article is very just a few sentences long and not "in detail" per SIGCOV, and the Esquire article is more about the director and only mentions the parody three times in passing, and thus not "in detail" either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The HTF and InsideHook articles are also like the Esquire article in that they are simply interviews with the director and only tangentially mention the video. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Di. Juwan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. E_F⁵ 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Di briefly mentioned this discussion on the Wikimedia Discord server. They quickly deleted their message upon being asked to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all participants thus far except Darth Stabro (but including the nominator and myself) are active on that server. Toadspike [Talk] 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted before they accidently mentioned it. And it hasn't done any damage, the !votes disagree with each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am on the server, I was not online when the message was sent. E_F⁵ 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it was not my intent to bring attention to the discussion or to canvas. I offhandedly mentioned it to express that I was annoyed at a page in queue for DYK being AFD'd, and when I realized that it could be interpreted badly I deleted the message. Again, I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in a queue for DYK is why it was nominated; see this comment on WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards delete, as I expressed at DYK – The Hollywood Reporter doesn't go into much depth, Hit the Floor and Esquire are mainly interviews, and BuzzFeed definitely doesn't count on this one. I might be convinced that The Hollywood Reporter, InsideHook, and Bubbleblabber make a very weak GNG pass, but the last two just aren't very weighty sources and if this is the best the article can be from those sources, then yeah, I'm not sure I see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the coverage identified; also see https://mommyish.com/porn-parody/ https://www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/top-des-parodies-x-les-plus-droles-du-cinema-4163152/ etc. A ’decent’ article is possible so that redirect is not necessary and I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deeply unimpressed by source quality and coverage. The Hollywood Reporter is the best coverage, and it's still just a brief blurb

. Bubbleblabber is clearly not RS

. Hit the Floor is a low-quality group blog with a single sentence fragment of coverage outside the interview

. Inside Hook, if it's even RS, is still a trivial one-sentence mention

. Esquire coverage is exclusively in an interview

. Instagram is worthless

. BuzzFeed is a non-RS listicle

. Mommyish is blatantly not RS, why even link it

. Cineserie is also not RS (byline is just "Hatman")—at best it's tabloid junk "edited" by people whose professional journalism credentials are unverifiable—and anyway is just barely three sentences in a listicle, very far from SIGCOV

. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed not RS, how? Bubbleblabber, not reliable, ”clearly”, why? For the rest, the sources you indicate as just a blurb, just a listicle, and so on address the subject in what are not trivial mentions, some being of lesser quality than other. As to ’why even list it”, read my comment and WP:OR and you’ll know. -Mushy Yank. 04:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By which Mushy Yank means they have added references to sugarcookie.xxx (!), cartoonbrew.com, and the Daily Beast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Mushy Yank also says that you’re most welcome! -Mushy Yank. 12:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Cartoon Brew and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Is The Daily Beast a reliable source -Mushy Yank. 12:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Friedman Agnifilo

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

This should probably be redirected to Luigi Mangione, as her only WP:notable action has been defending Mangione. So, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E most likely apply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and WP:BLP1E to the article of the individual that the subject is notable for having represented. --Richard Yin (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Most references are trivial mentions, but this is a pretty lengthy 2021 article about the subject in the New York Law Journal, which seems like a reliable source by my reading of WP:RSLAW. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article on Luigi Mangione. WP:BLP1E. Lack material for WP:V. QEnigma talk 14:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as she is only notable for one thing. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Luigi Mangione. Procyon117 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems as though if she weren't involved in the case of Luigi Mangione, she would have only had inherited notability via her husband (hate to say it that way but that's how it appears). Perhaps in the future she will have independent notability. Trillfendi (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With all respect to the nominator, I strongly disagree. Would you say that Johnny Cochrane defending OJ was not notable? This will be, and already is one of the most high profile cases in the entire world, and her name will be looked up on wikipedia constantly. Furthermore, she has plenty of independent notability before the case, with her working for the DA's office of Manhattan, working on Law and Order, and her popular podcasts. Those references have been added in. Please look at them. PaulPachad (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulPachad: Could you please provide independent reliable sources that provided significant coverage of Agnifilo that were published before December 2024? GoingBatty (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were added in. PaulPachad (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are only trivial mentions of her before this month- there was no WP:SIGCOV of her before, just mentions of her or her podcasts in passing more or less.

As for Cochrane, he became notable because of the way he defended OJ, not just bcs he was the defense lawyer. If she become notable, we can revert the redirect- that's why I said it should probably be redirected, and not deleted, bcs her notability will be very ambiguous for at least some time. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear @DoctorWhoFan91 If you google her name with the modifier "Before December 2024", you get dozens of articles that would qualify her for an article. Please look here, friends https://www.google.com/search?q=karen+friedman+agnifilo+before:2024-12-01&sca_esv=0abcab0091fd1269&tbm=nws&sxsrf=ADLYWIKOECi4pbSqwH6BXo6Farq5uIqUCw:1735248979949&ei=U8xtZ5rBOY-j5NoP8ZDG2Qw&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwjatq-YssaKAxWPEVkFHXGIMcsQ8NMDegQIBhAK&biw=1920&bih=911&dpr=1 PaulPachad (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot base notability on predictions about future events. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid losing the content in the event that the subject gains more notability in the future, draftifying is also an option. The current title can then be redirected. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect won't actually remove the page history, so there is no need to draftify it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re right, my bad haha. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mild keep based on her notability on TV and other media prior to the Mangione case. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because she was very independently WP:N before Mangione. She starred in the prosecution of Harvey Weinstein [24] [25] [26] [27] as the Chief Assistant District Attorney. Her reputation precedes her by a long way. There are many WP:V and WP:RS about her. IZAK (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just from skimming her article (which are filled with sources discussing her life and career before taking on Mangione's case), she:
"is a frequent legal analyst on television networks, including CNN and MSNBC"

"serves as a legal advisor for the television show Law & Order"

"worked in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office for over 20 years, holding several senior roles"

"From 2014 to 2021, served as Chief Assistant District Attorney, the second-highest position in the office. In this role, she oversaw more than 500 attorneys and played a significant role in high-profile cases."

"served as General Counsel to the New York City Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice during Michael Bloomberg's administration."

"helped develop Manhattan's first Mental Health Court"

"co-hosts a weekly legal podcast and YouTube channel, called MissTrial, on the MeidasTouch network"

She's mentioned in numerous reliable sources before 2024, and appears more notable (and accomplished) than some of the people listed in [[Category:20th-century American women lawyers]]. All of that plus her taking on Mangione's case (which, in addition to giving her more national attention, is now giving her international attention) tips the scale in her passing the Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Some1 (talk) 01:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial mentions, nothing in detail or focused on her before this month though. Mangione's case probably falls under WP:BLP1E like I stated in the nom statement. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a defense attorney with over two decades experience at the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, co-hosts two legal podcasts, is a legal advisor for Law & Order, and is a frequent legal analyst on CNN and MSNBC. Redirecting her page to Luigi Mangione's article makes it seem like her being his defense attorney is the only thing she's "notable" for. That's not accurate and doesn't help readers. Also, this 2021 interview with the New York Law Journal linked by Richard Yin above is noteworthy. Some1 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that she is not a big lawyer. I'm just saying that the only thing that would make her WP:Notable (she is notable, but Wikipedia uses a different criteria) is one thing only. Interviews are not always considered reliable, even if published in a reliable source. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Per nomination and comments. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not seem all that prominent. 80.200.94.240 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be honest, she should've had an article before the case anyway Personisinsterest (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Build

AfDs for this article:

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

14 yr old stub page that appears to be nothing more than an advert Hexware (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Hexware (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG criteria (WP:NSOFT). No Limited WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 13:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:NTEMP 2nd paragraph (While notability itself is not temporary, ...). QEnigma talk 07:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by citing this policy? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~: Article desperately needs expansion from the two sources cited, which do give it notability. I dunno what @QEnigma means as those are clearly both independent sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. .NET Developer's Journal appears to be more of a blog than a reliable source that demonstrates notability. The author of the article appears to only have written one article for that outlet and does not appear to be a journalist. Brandon (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The journal has a then-big publisher, Sys-Con Media, that hosts the cloud development expo advertised at the bottom. Looking at Groklaw#Media controversy, they have some sort of editing process that allowed tons of false claims to slip through, including the doxxing of a FOSS law reporter for no apparent reason. You're correct that the source's reliability is questionable, and on further review, it has little information (though addressed directly). Now that there's only one good source, I'll change my !vote to neutral.
We don't need journalists to write articles and reviews about software to have notability; not sure what you meant by that part. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Diamond

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

Article was deleted after an expired PROD with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article was restored 10 months later with the addition of the (highly selective) Science Citation Index Expanded in the section "abstracting and indexing". However, checking Clarivate's Master Journal List shows that this is not correct. Instead, the journal is included in the much less selective Emerging Sources Citation Index. Therefore the PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG. Ref. for WP:V, either limited or not available. QEnigma talk 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of pubs in Hampshire owned by JD Wetherspoon

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

Fails NLIST - Wikipedia is not a directory. CR (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and England. CR (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:TRIVIA. All cited sources are either to the company or to a historic archive that gives the geo-coordinates. None of the individual listings is notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic case of NOTDIR Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. None of the pubs listed have articles and sources are questionable. Procyon117 (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia isn't a directory and none of these pubs have articles. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NOTDIR; Outside the most generic person, nobody looking for a night out at a pub is looking to consult a list of corporate and generic pubs with the same sterile menu and ambiance; this list would be equivalent to a List of Buffalo Wild Wings in New Jersey article. Nate • (chatter) 21:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and clearly not a notable topic. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these pubs are listed buildings and for most pubs there is likely to be some other coverage so I'd be careful about the argument that none currently have articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this was clearly created in good faith by the author, there is no reason to keep it. It fails WP:NOT's guidelines for lists. These pubs can be found just as easily on Wetherspoon's Pub Finder, or a niche directory like Whatpub. --Mechanical Elephant (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

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

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09. Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.			The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article.
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19.			I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023.			Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette.	Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese	– Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also.
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews.			Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat.	Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	This is better than the other ones (e.g. [28]). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND.		–
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources: Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7. Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1.		However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources): responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform. is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:

The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself: a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).).

For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.

The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.

The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND

Announcements of hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE.

For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.

In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Wikipedia. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Ottoman Hearths seems like a middle ground here. Geschichte (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kant (Indian executive)

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

Non notable executive, fails wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, India, and Rajasthan. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The former CEO of Tata Motors [29] is a non-notable executive??? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BASIC, Wp:NINI and Wp:INVALIDBIO Notability is not inherited. Zuck28 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability inheritance doesn't apply to positions (as, for example, American state-level politicians). The CEO of a high-profile, major company is invariably covered by the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable executive, i have added citations and made it better. Taabii (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angelos Bountalis

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

Although the article is incredibly detailed, there are no sources at all as the one source used is just a link to a website with no apparent mention of Bountalis. I have searched in Greek but can't find anything about him. No sign of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC despite apparently having a very eventful amateur career. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will need to make a new one shortly, you will see this guy playing again, I know him personally and that's why I make his page.

Every athlete should leave his mark in this world, for the next generations to come and inspire. Footballlover23 (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you know him personally, then you have a conflict of interest. Please respond to the request to declare COI on your talk page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kmow him because i work as a scouter in football industry, i know many players around Netherlands and Europe. Footballlover23 (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That still falls under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. More to the point, please add some proper news sources to the Bountalis article. The one that you have included doesn't even mention him. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Already did it. 2A02:A210:4B9:DF00:3528:F340:29F9:40D7 (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources found. 2A02:A210:4B9:DF00:A5AB:CF80:5EE6:6F47 (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: courtesy ping as IP forgot to ping Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The one source found does not appear to be sufficient coverage. Giant Snowman 15:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete – Article provides only one source and mostly contains original research. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the single source doesn't even mention him. History6042😊 (Contact me) 15:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source mention him Footballlover23 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That source contains barely any substantial info about Bountalis. It's basically a copy and paste of a club press release. It contains no meaningful coverage of his career, playing style, injuries, personal life etc. I'm still firmly in favour of deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Ajudua

AfDs for this article:

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

One major problem is that this creation is likely a paid contribution that is undisclosed. The citations are evaluated based on this version as follows;

Citation 1 is a paid promotional puff and also a falsehood, especially when it said Ajudua’s impact is particularly evident in his work with Davido. He played a key role as a co-writer for “NA MONEY,” a track from Davido’s Timeless album that features The Cavemen and Angelique Kidjo. There is, as a matter of fact, no credit on anyone such as Bobo Ajudua if you check any of your streaming platforms for the single "Na Money" by Davido, and this alone is ridiculous and makes this whole thing iffy.

Citation 2 does is not only a paid puff but does not provide the substantial coverage we require to pass WP:GNG.

Citation 3 is not only an unreliable source, it lacks a byline and, even if it does have a byline, does not provide the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.

Citation 4 is not only a run of the mill piece, it lacks a byline and fails WP:SIGCOV.

Citation 5 from marginally reliable Vanguard does nothing but promotes and praises the subject such that only one or two useful information is passed. Take a look at the ridiculous line breaks while scrolling through the piece.

Citation 6 is just like Citation 5 above, does nothing but praises the subject ridiculously such the nothing notable is passes as an information. Over the years, he has cultivated a reputation for his thorough understanding of corporate law, intellectual property, and entertainment law. His expertise ensures that artists, creatives, and brands are not only legally protected but also strategically positioned for sustainable growth. What is the job of an entertainment lawyer? How is this anybody's business? What's notable about ensuring his clients are strategically positioned for sustainable growth?

Citation 7 is yet another paid puff about his brands that are doing nothing but their job, and in this context, lacks the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG for this subject.

People get sacked from their jobs everyday, what is notable about the subject being sacked?

What is Wikipedia's business with whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not?

Every other source I skipped are just as bad as the ones I already evaluated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Entertainment, Law, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject hasn't suddenly become notable since the last time this was discussed. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Striking my vote since the reliability of Nigerian news outlets, which have covered the subject in some depth, is subject to an ongoing discussion in which I don't have an opinion. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the sources here are used to verify informations and not as a means of promotion. There are sources which you have discarded simply because they were worded in a way that you do not like and I wonder when Wikipedia started dictating the tone of sources as I am fully aware that sources are allowed to be biased if they are reliable. The mix up in the PM News articles can be corrected with a simple mail to the editor (as it is standard procedure) and not my fault that the mix up occurred. I’ll present atleast three sources plus the fact that “Hmmm” which is a single in a Grammy nominated album "11:11 (Chris Brown album)" was co-written by Ajudua. This information was definitely not available in the last discussion. Ahola .O (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia started dictating the tone of sources! since Wikipedia:Neutral point of view existed and plus this is not the place for trivia and gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP), like really, why would we care whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not.

This is a biographies of a living person, so we need to be even more careful when it comes to writing and sourcing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YESPOV shows that articles could be non-neutral and our responsibility as editors is to present these views as neutral as possible. When it comes to being biased, I believe articles can be biased too per WP:RSBIAS; unless I’m interpreting the policies wrong.

The article about the father being absent is a celebrity article but I used it because it gives context into the married. Ahola .O (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are, in fact, misunderstanding and misinterpreting them. I couldn’t even comprehend what your view of NPOV and reliable sourcing is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand? Every source must not follow Wikipedia’s policies as each outlets has its own style of writing. Again, I ask, are we dictating that the tone of sources even when they have bylines are no evidence that they were sponsored? I think you are the one who does not understand WP:NPOV here. Also, if there are promotionals tone that I must have mistakenly added, is deletion the avenue for it? Ahola .O (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources show that the subject is notable.:

Jonahakuso (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)— Jonahakuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. There are sources that were not available in the last discussions. This one from PM News was published in April, 2023; this from Nigerian Tribune where they called him a pioneer] was published in 2022 and contrary to Vanderwaalforces that this is just passing mentions, this has some information on him; this from TheNEWS has an in-depth coverage on his company(ies). was published in July 2023; this from The Guardian was published in November 2023; this from Daily Times was published in 2024; This from Vanguard (which has been labelled a marginal reliable) has a byline and can be used to establish some notability. I believe that these sources meet the WP:GNG because 1) they are independent of the subject 2) has indepth coverage 3) are reliable 4) has demonstrated independent coverage. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would change my mind if there are evidence and not just there words ie some citations.

Ajudua is a co-writer of a Grammy nominated album 11:11 which meets WP:NCOMPOSER #1 and #4. This information is verifiable on every music streaming platform. Ahola .O (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of these sources taken together can arguably count as in-depth coverage, but I'd also like to note here that the reliability of most Nigerian news outlets is the subject of an ongoing discussion above my pay grade. I'll strike my vote above since I don't have an opinion on the reliability of these sources.

I will point out though that the subject is not co-writer of a Grammy-nominated album, he is co-writer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album. Most of the co-writers listed in 11:11 (Chris Brown album) don't have articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I had shown above shows that the Ajudua has coverages since 2022 or thereabout and I am sure that an extensive search will definitely show more.

I am not basing the notability here with just the single track. I am showing that amongst the sources that they meet a criteria there also, atleast #1. Ahola .O (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brysam Global Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either unreliable or defunct or does not demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References appear to be from non-quality sites.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, the page should be deleted due to it not meeting criteria. Tgvarrt (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has written more than one major hit record, automatically meets WP:COMPOSER, just like a scriptwriter or director who has directed multiple award-winning movies. Even if he doesn't pass GNG, but passes WP:FILMS, he automatically establishes notability. Likewise he passes WP:ANYBIO, with a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. One last thing, I would say the coverage for example [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], add up to a GNG pass, with an extensive list of production and songwriting credits from "No Girlfriend No Problem", "Away", "One Side", "Yawa No Dey End", "My Baby", and many more.--Afí-afeti (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Afí-afeti your comment makes it sound like you are arguing for a Keep but you neglected to actually declare this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment.--Afí-afeti (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Afi-Afeti, he doesn't meet WP:NMUSICIAN but he does meet WP:COMPOSER. History6042😊 (Contact me) 16:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Afí-afeti presented a very compelling argument. The reliability of some of the sources are questionable but the album nomination for the 66th Annual Grammy Awards can be verfied easily which at least means he meets the notability criteria at least as a composer. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma I’m sorry, but I do not see and cannot comprehend how having a Grammy nom (and not win) helps this subject to pass WP:COMPOSER. There’s absolutely nothing that implies an NCOMPOSER pass here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per point presented by Fuzzymama and Afi-Afeti Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He gained international recognition for co-writing Davido's Grammy-nominated fourth studio album Timeless, which earned him a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. That satisfies criteria 1 for WP:COMPOSER. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: couldn't find enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG and merit an article. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete vanity spam sourced to blackhat seo and nothing in the way of actual independent, reliable sourdes or coverage id also recommend the crestor thoroughly read thr paid editing policy before continuing to spam their clients. Admins, please see the hisotry of James Brynt as well. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dpkg. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dselect

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

Unnecessary, uncited article that could be merged into APT (software), merged into Debian, or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it'd be more logical to merge the content into Dpkg since that's the source package that contains it. Citations could no doubt be found if required e.g. from the changelog. Ewx (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a merge and redirect into a section in the dpkg article is warranted. It's not impossible that some old books about Debian talk about it, but it's been obsolete far longer than it's been current at this point. --Joy (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. WP:NOTCHANGELOG violations aside, the content currently in the article could be condensed to a couple of sentences so I'm not convinced it needs its own section in dpkg. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dpkg. On it's own it there is no significant news coverage.Shinadamina (talk) 03:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Computational human modeling

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

non-notable, based on Google Scholar and Google Books. fgnievinski (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a neologism with barely a definition and no real-world usage. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DICTDEF with no real world usage, Wikipedia appears to be the primary source for the term at this point. Brandon (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎ —usernamekiran (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X11 color names

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

WP:NOTGUIDE and no indication of warranting a separate article. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don’t see at all how this article would sound like a guide. Please elaborate. It is also not a simple list article but full of explanations about the genesis of these widely used named RGB colors. — Christoph Päper 07:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't read WP:NOTGUIDE as relevant since the article is not much more instructional than, say, Web colors. At worst the article does not satisfy a Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field, but that's an argument for rewriting rather than deleting.

The lead section needs to be cleaned up, and perhaps the whole thing needs to be restructured, but the subject easily passes WP:GNG and I don't see it failing WP:NOTDB or any other part of WP:NOT. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is one of my favorite articles, compared to Web colors, it is much easier to understand. 🐢 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Richard Yin's reasoning above. A potential improvement to the article would be reworking the lead so that what makes the X11 colors relevant is presented more explicitly. Duplode (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A useful, inormative, article. It doesn't read like a guide. Maproom (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Speedied as WP:A7 and WP:G11 by User:Espresso Addict. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BELLiNZEEMA

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I don't see enough coverage for the subject. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~I need the Article to be Published and not deleted OLADEPODESTINYCHIGOZIE (talk) 03:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~This is an Upcoming Artist and we are supposed to support him Chigozieeditor (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 10:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:G11. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. There’s no credibility of importance. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This article fails the criteria for WP:BLP. With two unreliable and promotional sources, there is no clear importance of the subject. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and MUSICBIO Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Trombetti

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

I believe the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG due to not receiving significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. None of the sources referenced by the article meet both these criteria - there are many citations either to primary sources or to reliable sources that only briefly mention the subject.

After searching online for sources:

Google web search shows no significant coverage from reliable sources in first 3 pages
Google Books shows the following results:

Zero to AI by Valigi and Mauro: Some passing coverage in a section, a few pages long, about the technical details of Trombetti's work.
How AI Ate the World by Chris Stokel-Walker. Passing mention of the subject in the context of an opinion he expressed on one occasion and a discussion of its merits.
Handbook of the Language Industry, published by De Gruyter. Even briefer mention of the same event.
Some more works that cite the subject as a source.

Google News shows a few podcasts and press releases, but no secondary sources.
Google Scholar shows about 700 citations, 400 to the subject's academic work. WP:NPROF is questionable.

Additionally, the tone of the article borders on WP:PROMO, and recent events appear to indicate undisclosed paid editing on a topic closely related to the article's subject. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Businesspeople. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not sure yet~~ Delete. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very high cited field. There is a lot of grandiose puffery of his entrepreneurial activities that other editors will have to assess. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC),[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, France, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The GScholar profile[35] shows h-index of 5, certainly not enough to pass WP:PROF. The case for WP:BIO notability as an entrepreneur also appears weak, per the nominator's arguments. In any case, the article is so promotional as to border on G11. Nsk92 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overtly promotion and obviously created by someone with a close connection to the subject. Brandon (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails SIGCOV and NBIO. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, fails WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Mangi

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find some additional references I think it can be maintained. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reference only supported the results, which were never in question, and did nothing to establish any sort of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And actually, upon examination, it’s a wiki-mirror. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of any IRS sources with SIGCOV, as required by GNG and SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the 'keep' argument is incredibly week, its presence precludes closing this as 'soft delete'. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel, the keep opinion was invalid as it belonged to a notorius block evader. Geschichte (talk) 14:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu

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

This subject doesn't appear to be notable. I scoured through everything for a BEFORE, including Japanese sources, Books sources, sources from the early 2000s, and Scholar sources. I found a genuinely fantastic source from SyFy, which can be viewed here: https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/pokemon-electric-tale-of-pikachu-manga.

Beyond that, though, is very little. There's some trivia articles from Valnet, which generally don't count for notability, but that's about it, and none of them are really SIGCOV of the entire manga series. The current source in the article is half-decent, but it's very barebones coverage (It's generic but it sold well). I found another hit in a scholarly paper, but it was just verifying the same sales info that I found previously. There's an interview source in here, but that falls under WP:PRIMARY, which doesn't count for notability.

There's scattered bits here and there, but nothing here for a strong, concrete article that satisfies any notability guideline. An AtD for now is to List of Pokémon manga. While not the greatest article, it allows for a preservation of page history should stronger sourcing come about, or if that list ever gets a revamp. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Video games, Anime and manga, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep - In addition to the SyFy article, there's a review by Ex.org (reliable source per WP:A&M/RS). Technically enough for notability but there's also a short review in Manga: The Complete Guide: [36]. And I wouldn't call this article by CBR trivial: [37], although CBR is marked as "generally unreliable", the author in this case has also written for reliable outlets like Polygon and Nintendo Life, so I wouldn't dismiss it as outright unreliable. And there's a sales article by Comichron (listed at WP:CMC/REF), written by a subject matter expert John Jackson Miller. --Mika1h (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found a review from Spanish print magazine Minami: [38] --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found these sources [39] (brief mention), [40] (sales), [41] (Plot). Timur9008 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources; I also found a good article in Screen Rant [42] (considered marginally reliable) and this Mania article is linked in the external links, which is a reliable source. Not to mention Anime News Network previously reported that at one point it was the best-selling comic book in the US [43]. Link20XX (talk) 17:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mania reviews are for the anime series, they should be removed from external links. --Mika1h (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed them. Timur9008 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize it was an anime review (admittedly was too lazy to read it); that being said, my vote does not change. Link20XX (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This isn't an argument for retention, but something that might point towards sourcing that could show notability. I seem to remember that this series was the first Pokemon manga to be brought over to the United States and given an official translation. The English release dates seem to back this up as well. I'm pulling up some hits in Newspapers.com - I'll go through those and see if they're for this series or not. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was indeed the first English language translation (official, anyway) of any Pokémon manga. I've found some news coverage of this - I'm uncertain of one of the reviews, but did find at least one good one. The one I'm not certain of, it's because the reviewer looks to be young. The picture is low quality so I'm not certain and the review isn't given any of the "reviewed by Jane Smith, age 8" or "Kiddie Korner" type additions that usually accompany child reviews, so I have to assume that it might have gone through more editorial oversight than some of the other reviews, if she is as young as I think she might be.

I'd have liked to have added more. I actually think that there is a very strong chance that there are more sources out there, they're just harder to find because of one (or both) of two reasons: The sources are not available on the Internet or do not allow for searching as one would with Newspapers.com. The sources do not use the specific title of "The Electric Tale of Pikachu" and instead refer to the series along the lines of "Pokemon comics", something that would be pretty easy to do as Viz began publishing the original, longer series immediately after completing the four volumes of TETOP. This newspaper article is a good example of this. It's a short mention about how the first issue of the comics (mentioned in the lead and backed up by the Yadao source) sold extremely well.

With this in mind, when you consider what I did find - and that some of those sources were released years after the last volume was released in 2000 - it does give off the strong impression that more sourcing is probably available. However even without that, I think that the currently available sourcing is enough to establish how the series passes notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something to back this up is that it's extremely likely that some of the anime and manga themed magazines of the time would have reviewed the series as well. Pokemon related topics were kind of a license to print money, so I could see one of the early magazines like Mangazine, Protoculture Addicts, and so on reviewing this. Sure, it's not a guarantee, but this is one of those cases where the existence of such mainstream sources gives off a good faith assumption that more likely exists.

Of note is that we also haven't searched for Japanese language sourcing. The same issues I mentioned above for the English language sources would apply here, but I think it's likely that more reviews and coverage exist in Japanese as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at the Pokemon and anime/manga WikiProjects, in the hopes that someone fluent can perform searches. I'm bringing up a lot of hits, but since I'm not fluent I'm unable to refine this so that the results bear fruit more easily. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as a result of some of the finds here. I'm impressed with a few of the more obscure finds I wasn't able to locate, primarily the Ex.org review. Combined with the SyFy source and some of the other sources, this more than passes WP:GNG. I'll see about trying to incorporate some of this content into the article soon. Thank you all for the finds! I honestly thought this wasn't notable at all, so I'm glad to have been proven wrong here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I would say that judging by the votes below, she just about passes the notability criteria. I see it unusual that someone under 18 would have an article (she's turning 16 tomorrow) but she's been noticed in reliable sources and because of her work as an actress, it's an exception. I also see that the history of this article with the draft should be merged or that content from Draft:Raegan Revord should be added here, however, I think its going to mess with the edit histories, but if anyone agrees with me, use the talk page for that. I also see a potential for the edit histories for the draft and the article be swapped, but again, should be discussed at the talk page(non-admin closure) JuniperChill (talk) 04:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

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

Per Talk:Raegan Revord#Requested move 19 December 2024, this title was previously salted and the subject's notability is doubful. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award[44] and a nomination at Young Artist Award [45] thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANU^writes 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Wikipedia article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Wikipedia entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Wikipedia failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, any argument for/against deletion needs to include everything added to Draft:Raegan Revord, which this article creator seems to have ignored/bypassed entirely. While that's not ideal, if we decide to delete this article, that will set back the acceptance of the draft for even more years, and that is worse than accepting this article (and then merging in the draft). CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away." Disagree, quite strongly. The internet is bigger than WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with your arguments (and love your passion). I definitely think the draft should be merged because what's currently there is kind of weak, but a cursory look at the draft looks like it has more information and sources. So, I say keep the article and merge it with the draft. (I'm still semi-new to wikipedia (especially since I don't use it all that often), so I can't say I know all the rules (of which there seem to be many, but I can understand why), but is there something keeping people from just merging the draft right now? I thought that during deletion discussions people could work to improve the article? And incorporating info & sources from the draft would almost certainly improve the article? (I kind of wanted to do that, but I assume there's a reason I can't if no one else is?) [Funnily enough, I found this article because I was trying to learn more about the rules of wikipedia, and it's linked in one of the many articles explaining some of the rules, so I came to check it out] MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marging is work, and doing the merge now might be wasted effort -- if we choose "delete", it will just get deleted. It's not necessary for evaluating this, since this article is not being evaluated based on its content but on its subject. It seems likely that if the decision is "keep", we will simply delete the article and move the draft version into its place, which is simpler than merging. (Merging is useful when you have two versions that each have worthwhile material that isn't in the other, but last I checked, that was not the case here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept, the draft should be back-filled into the history. As it stands, the accepted version in mainspace sounds nearly identical to the older rejected and multiply-declined draft. Therefore, the draft's history should remain to give original credit for those words. And this also casts doubt on the authenticity of the current article's editors' contributions as being truely their own, vs end-run around the non-acceptance of the older draft. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Consider this to be a more succinct statement than what I tried to say in my Keep but it's tangled comment above. CapnZapp (talk) 11:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a general acceptance in this discussion that the draft version is better (whether or not it's sufficient), might the simplest way to handle this if the decision is "keep" to simply delete the live version and move the draft into place? I don't quickly note anything from the live version that would need to be merged in. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mdewman6, ANUwrites and CapnZapp. Subject has been working as an actress for over ten years and has had about 150 credited TV appearances, with most of those in episodes of a top-rated TV series. More than sufficient to establish clear notability for the purpose of having a Wikipedia entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify, since you included me in your "per": There's lots of people with 100+ television credits that Wikipedia rightly ignore, if those are all bit roles. I'm not (strongly) arguing she fulfills the current NACTOR criteria (though I wouldn't be surprised if she is), I'm arguing Wikipedia's criteria are wrong if we can't add articles on young actors simply because not only do they need one successful show, they need two. This heavily tilts Wikipedia's coverage toward adult actors and away from young superstars, sometimes with massive online presences, that people are interested in but our stodgy project choose to ignore. But child actors aren't simply children whose integrity we should protect above all - these individuals and their parental guardians CHOSE public life. They clearly appreciate publicity more than privacy. (No, you can't be part of Hollywood anonymously unless you're a baby) Also, in this case Young Sheldon was a major show where it just so happened that one of its main cast wasn't bluelinked in the main article... and that was (of course) a female. Gender equality is another heavy argument to maintain an article on Revord. All this to say that if you "per" me, you per "so what she hasn't had a second notable role, here we should clearly make an exception from NACTOR". CapnZapp (talk) 11:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be arguing that we should have lower standards for child actors than for adult ones, which seems precisely backwards to me. To the degree that a child actor is making any decision, they are not informed maturely in making themselves so public. There are several ways in which Wikipedia considers minors worthy of additional protection, and Ms. Revord is still a minor at this point. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading but my argument "this rule hurts child actors more" does not mean I want to lower the standards for child actors. I don't have any general issue with the 2-roles criteria, iff we accept that thresholds and rules have justifiable exceptions. The current standards demonstrably result in articles on actors (especially young ones whose careers are just starting) remaining absent until well after they have completed a seven season run of a top 10 show, which is absurd. CapnZapp (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consider WP:MINORS (that essay is an essay). Having a WP-article is not an achievement, nor does it necessarily do the subject any favors. The older someone is, it's a bit more likely they have WP:GNG-coverage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History merging would not be appropriate because it is strictly only for copy-and-paste moves. So, how should we resolve this, then? I see at least ~~three~~four possibilities:
- Round-robin swap Draft:Raegan Revord with Raegan Revord and then merge and redirect the former to the latter (if the draft version is better).
- Move Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord (actress) and then move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord. After that, Raegan Revord (actress) could then be merged and redirected to Raegan Revord with the following three rcat templates: {{R from merge}}, {{R with history}}, and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} (alternative to round-robin swapping if the draft version is better).
- Merge and redirect Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord (if the article version is better).
- Delete Raegan Revord and then move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord (if there is nothing from the article that is worth merging into the draft). (Added 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC))

GTrang (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all too complicated. I think we should simply not worry about it for a few days, until this AFD is over. Then we delete Raegan Revord and if the outcome is keep, move Draft:Raegan Revord to Raegan Revord. If the outcome is delete, we just leave the draft where it is, as the draft of something that has a reasonable chance of crossing the notability rubicon soon. There is nothing in the currently-live article that needs to be saved. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added a fourth possibility to my list. GTrang (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is long overdue. If any more info is in the draft article it should also be included. --Marbe166 (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uladzislau Palkhouski

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has exactly the same competition results as Kalehanova (AfD below), so also doesn't meet NSKATE. Searching for sources under romanized and cyrillic names only turned up non-sigcov [46][47]. Toadspike [Talk] 12:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emiliya Kalehanova

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet NSKATE, web searches for romanized and cyrillic names did not turn up any secondary sources. Toadspike [Talk] 12:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Nom.Canary757 (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelli Ioffe

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet NSKATE and could not find any sigcov with a quick web search. Toadspike [Talk] 12:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ward (pitcher)

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

As much as I hate to AfD those that have played a professional game of baseball, after getting a PROD tag I scoured old newspaper sources and was unable to find anything whatsoever on this person trying every combination I could think of. Even the game logs for September 1885 turn up empty to the point that I'm questioning if he ever played at all (he does but it took Peter Morris to find anything and even then it's only primary source stuff). Literally the only thing I found of his existence is the Courier-Journal on Sep. 20, 1885, but even then it's only a sentence and goes more on a tangent involving the far superior John Ward baseball player. Wizardman 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing thanks to the finding of sources, not sure how you found some of those but happy to see it. Wizardman 01:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 00:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Providence Grays all-time roster. He has an entry at Baseball-reference.com for the time being which is good enough to prevent deletion. Looks like we're going to need a List of MLB players who don't meet NSPORTS. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BX. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." This source (which doesn't even give a first name for pitcher "Ward") is not SIGCOV. The search is complicated by the fact that this player and John Montgomery Ward (sometimes referred to as "John Ward", e.g., here) were both pitchers for Providence in the 1880s. Cbl62 (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: His death announcements include some further biographical details. See here, here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded it a bit this morning, and given the difficulty of finding sources from the 1880s (for example, the Providence newspaper is not avaialable online from that era), I think the sourcing is now strong enough to keep under WP:NBASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability."). Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NBASIC per Cbl62. Literally no MLB player whose full name is known has ever been deleted in the 20-plus year history of Wikipedia (see also List of 19th-century Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names) WP:NSPORTS is just a guideline, not a policy. Baseball players were never a problem with NSPORTS. The baby (WP:NBASEBALL) was just thrown out with the bathwater (WP:NSPORTS2022). I think it's silly modern minor leaguers can get articles by passing GNG without ever actually playing in MLB and old-timers like this can get deleted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after expansion - a decent amount of news sources now. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khilkov

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

Astonished how long this rubbish has been around. The only source was a WP:SELFPUB WP:OR blog, probably run by the same User:Khilkoff who created this page in 2008. Moscow wasn't "founded" in 1147, but only first mentioned; we've got no idea who founded it and when. But Mr Selfpub Blog is certain that *his* ancestors founded Moscow, and that Wikipedia should mention this "fact". This whole article is genealogical fancruft WP:COATRACK written by one descendant for WP:SELFPROMO about how he and his family are so awesome because they descended from someone who is awesome. At the very least WP:TNT. (No objection to keeping Category:Khilkov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 00:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG. QEnigma talk 13:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG not met, cannot find any adequate sources to replace the one removed. Procyon117 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, a quick search revealed little that would contribute to notability. Hence, I think it should be deleted. Tgvarrt (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete this article due to concerns about the paucity of decent sources for a BLP and concerns about possible copyright issues. No penalty though for editors wanting to write a superior article in Draft space that can be submitted to WP:AFC for review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. Steven Svoboda

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

This article about a lawyer and activist has been tagged with too much reliance on primary sources since 2016. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and added what I can, but am not seeing significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. I do not think the article meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Sexuality and gender, United States of America, and California. Tacyarg (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total lack of significant coverage. This is far below what we demand for a BLP, especially an Attorney. This is also just a coat rack for an issue that is best suited for a focused article. Bearian (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - He's a recognized child genital cutting expert, at least for endosex male minors. He has written, probably a lot, in academic journals on matters of law and children's rights surrounding the highly controversial topic of non-therapeutic endosex male child circumcision (partially or full surgical removal of the penile foreskin, which is about one-third of the "motile skin system" of the penis). Also, he has contributed to, and signed, two large international child genital cutting experts statements (in 2024 and 2019), published in the American Journal of Bioethics: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2019.1643945 Chrono1084 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You get a few hits in GScholar, would that be enough to pass academic notability? Not sure what the citation factor for this person is. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG/NBIO, unlikely to ever pass that threshold. Unclear if he would meet NACADEMIC in regard to the scientific subjects related to his focus. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just found him as an author of a paper on legal aspects of circumcision / MGM - one of relatively few on its topic ('Circumcision of healthy boys - Criminal assault?'), article could definitely stand to be improved and expanded esp. lede but plenty of material to prove notability Al. M. G. 2004 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG/NBIO and NACADEMIC. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the two American Journal of Bioethics articles mentioned and three others: a 2003 New York Times, a 2006 Journal of the Catholic Health Association of the United States and a 2013 National Post. Is that enough to keep the article? At least for now (my computer has some problem)? There now seems to be enough academic/scientific articles but I'll try to find some more news/media content. Also, probably don't take into account RomanianObserver41's opinion? This newly created user and another created one, ConeflowerDave, have recently deleted useful information, particularly the two American Journal of Bioethics articles, on another child genital cutting expert: bioethicist Brian Earp. They seem likely part of a relatively long list of, now blocked, accounts used by at least one person to make it difficult to update and improve child genital cutting-related articles. Maybe I should request to investigate them? https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive Chrono1084 (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again in the hope that it will generate commentary/analysis of recently added sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

del no significant coverage. --Altenmann >talk 03:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you Beeblebrox. I now added 2020 San Bernardino Sun and The New Zealand Herald articles and, more importantly, a 2022 SSM - Qualitative Research in Health and a 2023 Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics articles. There's more to add, maybe even better, if I can find the time. I deleted the {{BLP primary sources|date=March 2016}} because it already seems irrelevant. Involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting, including newborn endosex male circumcision, is probably one of the most sensitive topics. It's likely safe to assume that this can explain at least some of the delete votes. If it's ok, I'll be contacting users for a possible vote reevaluation. Chrono1084 (talk) 13:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much has changed. I've added academic and media articles. There's more to add, when I can. My vote is now "Strong keep".Chrono1084 (talk) 05:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Chrono1084 has given 50 plus writings by Svoboda showing he is a big figure. Svoboda is a good personal friend of mine and this appears to be a last ditch, sad attempt to avoid the elephant in the room of male genital mutilation. He is one of the leading experts of child genital cutting. Penises were born perfect. Foreskin is awesome. Cutting the genitals of babies certainly isn't. He has written much on the topic and there's no reason we can't have an article on him. If characters in a video game are important enough to include on here... or baseball cards... he certainly is. Sad to see an attempt to minimize the suffering of men. This appears to be a psychological form of denialism by mutilated men. IntactAndProud (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you IntactAndProud for your comment and edit but, sorry, I'm not really convinced that it helped: it added unsourced content, content from sources seem less present, it reorganized the article but not necessarily in a good way, also it appears more about involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting in general than about Svoboda. Please maybe revert your edit and let's just keep the new Red Pill part? Thank you Chrono1084 (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG fail and doesn't appear to pass any of the SNG either. There simply is not the signficant coverage we would expect of a notable subject here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a complete mess! There is so much POV editing here and the article scores a whopping 89.7% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector! (Yes, that's partially because his book and article titles are so long that they get flagged as similarities but it's not only that.) It's very hard to assess the actual level of notability beyond the fact that there are some hits in Google Scholar and a few passing mention in Google News. If there is a better version to revert to then maybe that is the way forward? Maybe it really is a delete. I don't know. TNT maybe? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the POV editing gone now that IntactAndProud's edit was reverted? I'm not sure about the 89.7% Copyvio with the current content: I added many sources and I seem to have quite changed the article's text.Chrono1084 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  70.7% now. That's better but still not good. DanielRigal (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok DanielRigal. Is such a percentage common on Wikipedia? Before my edits, I think a lot of the content came, more or less directly, from https://www.arclaw.org/ I'll try to lower this percentage. Please keep me informed, if you can: I don't know about Earwig's Copyvio Detector. Thank you Chrono1084 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some more content. There's more I would like to add.Chrono1084 (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG - citations are all either written by the subject, trivial mentions (quotes from article subject in response to some event), or are unreliable sources (like The Good Men Project, a site described as a webblog that shouldn't be used as a source on a BLP at all). Lots of new text has been added during this AFD, but none of it has helped to cure the sourcing problems. - MrOllie (talk) 13:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Mr Ollie for your comment. I added the The Good Men Project article because one of the main expressed concerns was Svoboda's apparent insufficient media coverage. Because that concern seemed legitimate and to be adressed, it's probably best to keep the Good Men Project article? Apparently, most of its informations can be found elsewhere: for instance, the UN consulting part is in the Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics 2023 article. I'm trying to find a second source for the radio appearances part. About the "internationally acclaimed thought leader on fatherhood and men’s issues" part, author Diane Sears probably thought of Svoboda's contributions, particularly in his column for Everyman magazine, "Gender, Law, and Fatherhood." This was a relatively long time ago so it might be difficult to find other online sources. Chrono1084 (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Good Men Project is a blog. Per WP:BLPSPS it should not used as a source on a biography. You seem to be spending a lot of time on this, but AFD discussion are all about quality sources, and so far you have none - that's the only thing you ought to be spending time on. Expanding the article with substandard sourcing is just going to be wasted effort if this AFD closes as delete. Diane Sears's blog post is unusable. - MrOllie (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is an unrefuted claim that this fails ANYBIO/GNG. No sources have been provided in this AfD and I have conducted my own searches. The subject does, in fact, appear in multiple books and articles, but they are authored by the subject and thus not independent. To show notability for an encyclopaedic biography, we are looking for secondary sources about the subject, telling us who he is and why we should care. Listing his output, including quotations to the media, etc., does not do that. Sources need to be independent, reliable and secondary. We still don't have those. Which, incidentally, is not such a surprise as this nom. is always careful, in my experience, to scrupulously try to expand articles prior to nominating them. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel

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

Recreation of a deleted article, WP:CSD#G4. MB 2437 17:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Lists, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Reasonable split form main article. Wins are an important part of the bio. --Altenmann >talk 03:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – No, not a reasonable split as previously determined. CSD § G4 applies. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD § G4 (~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Juan Manuel Fangio~~Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton). SSSB (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean to link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. Thanks for pointing out my error. Fixed it now. SSSB (talk) 08:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments at the Lewis Hamilton AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Juan Manuel Fangio

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

Several other similar articles for other drivers have been deleted, per this discussion. WP:CRUFT and WP:LISTN. MB 2437 18:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Lists, and Argentina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Reasonable split from main article. Wins are an important part of the bio. --Altenmann >talk 03:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deemed otherwise in the discussion above, this instance is no different. MB 2437 03:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete – No, not a reasonable split as previously determined. ~~CSD § G4 applies.~~ 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC), amended 08:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously an WP:OTHERSTUFF arguement, so I'm not going to say "see this previous discussion". However, I do think that everything I said in the previous discussion is equally applicable here, so I have copy and pasted my previous arguement with a couple of minor adjustments: the articles of the respective drivers already break-down their races wins in a much cleaner and succinct way - through the race record table (e.g. Juan Manuel Fangio#Complete Formula One results). The nominated articles do nothing other than specify minor details. The only parts of these articles which are unique to these articles (i.e. not already specified on the main driver page) are: date, circuit, grid position and margin which are all either WP:FANCRUFT, WP:NOSTAT or both (e.g. margin and grid position lack any of the context required for this information to be worth anything meaningful.) These articles serve no purpose other than to offer irrelevant and/or contextless data. SSSB (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, it's not an appeal to precedent but we've now had discussed these lists of wins several times at AfD (first in this batch, then this batch, and then finally this batch) and every time we've encountered the same issues. Beyond what you've mentioned regarding the triviality of the statistics, demonstrating notability has also been a recurring issue, and nobody !voting to keep has ever demonstrated how a list like this would pass WP:NLIST. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. MB 2437 09:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments at the Lewis Hamilton AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]