Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 15	January 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Detailed logarithmic timeline

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

Besides the unique format in which events are presented, neither this article nor its simple counterpart appear to offer much else of encyclopedic value that wouldn't be possible to find in any of the pages listed within Timelines of world history. They could arguably be analogous to the graphical timelines for the Big Bang and the heat death.

This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. My goal isn't to get these articles deleted, but to see how they would fare when held up against the scrutiny of an AfD discussion such as this one. If this discussion ends in favor of retention, the Keep arguments should be able to give curious onlookers a better understanding of why either article ought to be kept around. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bunge Burunje

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The sources could not establish WP:SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Ethiopia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources for this person. The ones in the article are very brief, and the website is a news and advertising service. I'm unsure if it's promotional or not, but we have no sourcing anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Oaktree b. No sources, could be promotional. LarryL33k (Contribz) 05:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Gupta (software developer)

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

Non-notable businessman; fails WP:NBIO/WP:GNG. Coverage is limited to:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in coverage of other subjects ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview ([10])
His own writings ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE patent docs ([17], [18], [19])

A couple sources here don't even mention him ([20], [21]); perhaps they were included by mistake. I didn't find any other qualifying coverage in my WP:BEFORE search, and I checked for an WP:NAUTHOR pass but didn't find any independent reviews for his books. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, India, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I suppose there could be an argument under WP:NPROF#C4 based on being a contributor/editor for multiple textbooks and reference works, but I don't buy it at all — none of the works seem to be in wide enough use. I would also have to assume based on his bio that he has published in journals, but the name is too common for me to work out what he's actually published (Google Scholar says that the 'Deepak Gupta' listed as an author on one of his books has an h-index of 70, but it's clearly pulling together publications from multiple people with the same name). Agree that there's no indication of passing WP:GNG as a businessman or WP:NAUTHOR as an author, and I'm very, very sceptical that his research work could be enough for an WP:NPROF pass. MCE89 (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Software, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ozzi

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Technically passes WP:NFOOTY, since he's made 1 professional appearance for a national-level club, but I would note that NFOOTY is an essay and not binded in policy, and the player section has been superseded anyway. I suggest draftification because said appearance was made only a few months ago, and he's 20, so pretty young in association football terms. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON right now. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:383D:B8A4:4B33:8A86 (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY doesn't exist, so he doesn't technically pass it. Giant Snowman 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already noted that it's been superseded, did you even read what I said? Reading comprehension and general effort seems to be lacking in Afd discussions. If I had a shot for every time I've seen someone say "per nom" or "per [policy]" and nothing else, I would be as drunk as a lord. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:F1A3:81DD:D733:B4E1 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article also lacks any general effort. Simione001 (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was blind and couldn't see the 4 references in the article. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:F1A3:81DD:D733:B4E1 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 19:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shucayb Dad Mohamed

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. All the sources are unreliable and cannot establish any notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Somalia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Smart

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:ENT, WP: ANYBIO or WP:GNG. All the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not appear to have reliable secondary sourcing to confirm notability for WP:GNG. Mamani1990 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are some WP:GNG-sources in the article but I could be wrong; so, delete.. Ahola .O (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abode Solicitors Ltd

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

A search for sources yielded 1 google news hit. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, and England. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decauville factory in Petite-Synthe

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

Beyond the single source already in the article, I cannot find a single example of WP:SIGCOV that would contribute to a WP:NCORP pass for this defunct early-20th-century factory. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability through significant coverage has not been demonstrated. Given the timeframe sources may exist offline, or in places not indexed by search engines. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Decauville, that's really what this article is about. This would the company's factory in the town. Oaktree b (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fedmyster

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

his only notability is the controversial stuff he did, and being a former org member. little actually encyclopedic useful information. Http iosue (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: This is about him [22], some coverage in gaming sites. Got hit after hit on GameRant, but that's an iffy source. One more decent source, we'd be ok Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in the Hudson Valley

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

This is a rather absurd list. There are no, literally none at all, sources that describe the tallest buildings in the Hudson Valley/Hudson River Valley as a group. On that front, this is a pure WP:NLIST failure. Not to mention it's a pile of WP:OR and unsourced data on a group of buildings assembled by the page creator with no real evidence that the list is correct. Beyond the concept of "tallest buildings in the Hudson Valley" not being found in any source, this list doesn't even include any buildings outside of Westchester County. (I looked to see if "List of tallest buildings in Westchester County" would pass NLIST, and it wouldn't either.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Too specific, Article is unfinished, and there DEFINITELY is Original research. LarryL33k (Contribz) 23:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Dimitri

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious notablity. The previous Afd claimed "good sources" which were subsequently refbombed to the article. I reviewed them (and some others) and see nothing but short blurbs in run-off-the-mill reviews of some circus performances and no significant coverage of the person in depth. --Altenmann >talk 23:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Full quotes from sources cited, for your convenience

One-Ring Circus That Breathes Fellini

Of varying length, they involve the men and women of Les Colporteurs, notably David Dimitri with some nimble, acrobatic tightrope work, in feats of balance, swinging and twirling on ropes, being manipulated like a marionette, flying on a trapeze, clowning and juggling.

The Two-Ring Circus

During celebratory cocktails, they turned their gaze to the Zurich-based tightrope walker David Dimitri (son of the Swiss national treasure Dimitri the Clown) as he traversed a nearly invisible wire a perilous 20 feet above the backyard pond.

Daffiness and Daring In Every Last Ring

Among the daredevils are David Dimitri, the Big Apple's Juilliard-trained Lord of the Wire, who dances to Celtic strains and skips rope on the high wire;

THE FEEL OF A ONE-RING CIRCUS NYT Nov. 22, 1985

Stylistic sympathy notwithstanding, Dimitri had another reason for performing with the Big Apple this year: his 22-year-old son, David, is a member of the troupe. David Dimitri has been performing with circuses since he was 7 years old, when his partner was a llama. Now in his fourth season with the Big Apple Circus, he is thrilled to be on the same bill with his father - but as a name in his own right. I grew up with this image of my dad being very well known in Europe, David Dimitri says. It makes me very happy to be a known, solo performer here, but in the same show with him. It's my own achievement.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I don't know a lot about this kind of thing, but there are a lot of hits on Swiss newspaper archives [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] some more significant than others. A few look pretty OK, but some are reviews of his performances. If not notable, ATD merge to his father, Dimitri (clown), who is notable. There are more but searching Scriptorium is a nightmare. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are plenty of hits, because he did plenty of performances. But we need in-depth coverage and the article was not at all improved since its first nomination, hence it exhausted its "presumption of notability" and must go. --Altenmann >talk 23:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Well if the sourcing isn't good enough that's one thing but as far as I'm aware there isn't a set number of AfDs that make WP:NEXIST not apply. There are a lot of listings but there are some sources that seem to be sigcov on the man. So I am unsure. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tollywood Focus

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Deprodding user suggested redirecting this page to List of Bengali films of 2008, but I don't think that it would make sense to do so. GTrang (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and West Bengal. GTrang (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would not that make sense? Is it not a Bengali film of 2008 and listed there? Redirect, as I suggested when I DeproDded (same nominator). -Mushy Yank. 23:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Puleio

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

After a review and a search I cannot find any independent and reliable WP:SIGCOV of this footballer for a WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT pass. If you find any, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Montenegro, and Argentina. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Search Alpha

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. All the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. I conducted a WP: Before and I could not find any signs of notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another WP:PROMO article which fails WP:ORGCRIT and does nothing but advertises the services of Search Alpha. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th century in Russia

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

Page duplicates Timeline_of_Russian_history#20th_century. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Russia. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't? 20th century in Russia is a collection of links to "[year] in Russia" articles starting with 1991 in Russia and ending with 2000 in Russia (so it's "Russia" in the sense of the Russian Federation, specifically—not the Russian Empire or Russian SFSR). Timeline of Russian history#20th century is entirely different. The article does however duplicate part of List of years in Russia—was that what you meant? I'll note that 21st century in Russia redirects to Timeline of Russian history#21st century. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you -- List of years in Russia is indeed what I meant. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the benefit of having this article in addition to List of years in Russia (they are both purely navigational collections of links to articles, and this one is a proper subset of the other one), so it would be appropriate for it to redirect there. However, given that 21st century in Russia redirects to Timeline of Russian history#21st century, I suppose this should instead redirect to Timeline of Russian history#20th century for consistency. Either way, redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Wright (snooker player)

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

No notable success in pro game. Very short career. Fails GNG. Canary757 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. Canary757 (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (academic)

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

Please click the blue button that says "show" to reveal my rationale.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.mdx.ac.uk/_samllogin/mdx-intranet?url=https%3A//www.s.mdx.ac.uk/about-us/our-people/staff-directory/profile?name=smith-emily	~ Former employer but there is probably some editorial oversight on their website	Has a press in good standing I think?	404 error and I couldn't retrieve it from the Internet Archive	✘ No
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts.htm	Website of the organisation that he was the leader of	Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live	Website 404 error	✘ No
http://www.cybsoc.org/contacts/people-Smith.htm	Website of the organisation that he was the leader of	Nothing at WP:RS and the website is no longer live	Website 404 error	✘ No
https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/journal/k?id=k#editorial-team	The source doesn't mention the subject so it's independent in that regard .	Emerald Group Publishing appears to be in good standing	Doesn't mention the subject	✘ No
https://wosc.co/board-of-directors/	Website of an organisation whose board he sat on.	No discussion at WP:RS that I am aware of	Just a mention in a primary source	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: ~~Academics and educators~~, Actors and filmmakers, Television, Engineering, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He could pass GNG if we consider a combination of awards: the Freedom of the City and the Public Awareness of Physics Award by the Institute of Physics. What do other people think? Bearian (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two non-notable awards are definitely not enough for ANYBIO and obviously don't count whatsoever toward GNG, which is strictly about coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe awards could potentially support C2 of WP:NACADEMIC/C1 WP:ANY. However, as far as I can see there aren't any reliable independent sources to verify that he actually received those awards so including them is effectively original research.

His TV appearances may support C1 of WP:ENT although the sources used don't verify these appearances and the text implies that he only had supporting roles or guest appearances in these productions.

There may also be C5 and C3 of WP:NACADEMIC and his editorships could potentially support C8.

But, as far as I can see there simply aren't any reliable sources to support any of the above. Also, if these subject-specific criteria were present then one would assume that there would be some secondary-source coverage and therefore GNG. Relying on primary sources alone to establish notability usually results in pages that read like lists or CVs and the end result is effectively a secondary source when we're aiming to create a tertiary source here.

Plus, any future expansions may very well lead us down the OR route.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NeutralI am going to abstain from voting for now with a recommendation to allow the discussion to continue for another week to see if any ATDs are possible and reach a broader consensus on what to do with this page. Thank you Bearian and JoelleJay for your insights and contributions thus far.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruidoso River Museum

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

I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this museum at all, and it looks like it may have permanently closed according to social media chatter. The best coverage is passing, promotional mentions like this, which in my view is not sufficient to support a redirect to Ruidoso, New Mexico. This article may be referring to the same museum. Suriname0 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and New Mexico. Suriname0 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The museum has closed and some of their artifacts have been sold off. I've updated the article to reflect this. There are a number of other defunct museums on Wikipedia so it's not a problem retaining it as an artifact. Nayyn (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Nayyn, I have no problem with the fact that the museum is closed. My concern with retaining it as an article is that I can find no WP:SIGCOV. In my opinion, the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG... and is not close to meeting WP:NCORP. (I doubt the RoadsideAmerica.com article is reliable, and it looks like the most in-depth coverage.) Thanks, Suriname0 (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Combs

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

There isn't any significant coverage by reliable sources for this individual. Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBASIC. A draft also exists at Draft:David Combs. Frost 17:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would redirect it to one of his two main bands. Bearian (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, can you specify a Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Rodríguez Villegas

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. No significant new events since 2016 deletion. — Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There are many articles like this that should be deleted and no one is arguing for them to be deleted. There are biographies of athletes, new actors in the same situation and no one is suggesting deleting them. I don't think it should be deleted. The person has very good sources and the writing is different now than when it was first deleted.

There are relevant works such as new novels and contributions from academic works so I don't think it should be deleted. Yovanmartinez (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Polygnotus (talk) 09:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Architecture. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, and I don't see the subject passing WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, or any criterion in WP:ACADEMIC (Google Scholar shows no more than single-digit citation counts in the first few search result pages). --Richard Yin (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a new author who is just starting his career as a writer, so there are quite a few here and I think what he is publishing now is interesting. Queresant (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Fire (disambiguation)

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

Given the notoriety of the 2025 fire, there is no reasonable chance there would be another fire of this name anytime soon, so per WP:ONEOTHER this disambiguation page is not needed. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this as {{One other topic}} instead of deleting because someone brought up the 1916 fire in the Palisades during the RM and wanted to let people decide on including that/see if they could find any other potential additions. Delete if the DAB stays as a standard WP:ONEOTHER situation. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that discussion too, but I viewed it as concluding that "Palisades Fire" doesn't reasonably refer to that fire, because the area was not called "Pacific Palisades" yet. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary DAB a hatnote can fix. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the hatnote already does the job perfectly, no DAB needed --Joost van Assenbergh (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Favi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER and WP:GNG. Almost all the sources are either promotional, puff pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note from the previous AfD (about a year and a half ago) that articles on this singer were rejected in the Draft system multiple times, but somebody snuck it into mainspace anyway. This has happened again and little has changed for the singer. Still an up-and-comer with material on the standard self-upload platforms and publicity announcements reprinted by the usual non-critical Nigerian hype publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is this a HOAX? He had an article in 2008, but only began singing in 2015 and now in 2023? If he's not made any notability in the nearly 20 years since the first AfD, I'm not sure what else there is to say. Releasing music on a streaming platform isn't notable. Source used aren't RS or very marginal. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2008 AfD was for someone else with a similar name, listed at the top of this page due to an apparent glitch. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for the explanation. I still don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musos Awards

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

Non-notable award. No significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Awards. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of Melrose Place

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

This page used to contain summaries for every season of this series, but those have since been removed, presumably because they were duplicates of the summary sections of each individual season. As a result, the page now is redundant, albeit with less information, to List of Melrose Place episodes. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(33128) 1998 BU48

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NASTCRIT. Cremastra (u — c) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been part of small scale studies and has had its spectrum analysed [35][36] and also there is an occultation prediction [37]. --C messier (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's enough mention in studies to indicate at least marginal notability. It has a large magnitude range and a slow rotation period, which suggests it is a contact binary with high probability.[38] Praemonitus (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

International Discworld Convention

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

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

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

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

Primary sources for the convention are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge to Discworld, or possibly keep, depending on the discussion of sources above. The Hollywood Reporter article only briefly mentions the convention, but can have the same use in the Discworld article than it has in the web article: the convention verifies the importance of the fandom for this fictional universe. More importantly, Fans and Fandom, p. 186-187, which as far as I can tell is a personal overview over such things by a reporter and editor in just that field, has a page on the convention. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Discworld convention is still a premier event in the UK (which attracts attendants from across the Anglosphere), even though Terry passed away ten years ago. It is one...I think of five...current Discworld conventions (not including the North American one, which may or may not return). Terry Pratchett was once the best selling author in the UK (and routinely hit number one spot in the main North American charts) for a time. TP's works routinely pops up in The Best Lists. The legacy of the works is being continued with the production company Narrativia, which is currently adapting Terry's works to screen and telly, Good Omens being a recent large scale production, of this sort, and with books being released with the blessing of Narrativia. The Convention actually grew in the years after Terry’s passing and currently shows no sign of diminishing, it's the opposite, as such it is one of the largest, if not the largest (I don't know for sure) UK conventions of it's type based on a sole author's works.Halbared (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

San Antonio–Austin metroplex

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

Requesting deletion due to the fact that Austin and San Antonio are over an hour apart among other reasons. In order for a polycentric metropolitan area to occur, a steady back and forth commuting pattern must be established between the 2 cities or between 2 or more of their respective suburbs. While not impossible, it is overwhelmingly unlikely that this will ever come to pass, therefore the existence of a Wikipedia article on the subject is unfortunately misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiana2001 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue is, said metropolitan area doesn't technically exist in practice, it's only a term used to include Austin and San Antonio as one metro area. Indiana2001 (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources in the article alone show this idea passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask

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

I am not aware of a nask called Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht. There is a nask simply called Hadokht as well as two fragments called Nerangestan and Herbedestan. However, the latter two aren't nasks but once formed parts of the Husparam nask. In addition, they are/were not Zand but Zand-Avesta texts meaning, they contained both the Avestan original jointly with the Pahlavi commentary.

Since the text only provides a single vague reference, which doesn't contain anything about a nask called Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht; it is not possible to verify what the intent of the article is.

To clarify, I do think that topics like the Hadokht nask, the Husparam nask, the Nerangestan text and the Herbedestan text do deserve a dedicated Wikipedia article. I just don't think that the current one is one, can be changed into one, or even has any identifiable topic to begin with. If these points are true, the article should probably be deleted.Kjansen86 (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I Googled the phrase "Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht nask" and apart from pages which derive from this article, I found this phrase only in one other source: "Avestan Architecture: A Descriptive Etymological Lexicon". Therein, the full sentence is "In addition to that, Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask and some other scattered documents are considered as Avestan sources." I also saw that this reference was originally used as a source in this Wikiepdia article to demonstrate the existence of such a work. This source was deleted since then for unclear reasons.

Now, several things seem clear from that. First, the article seems to be based on the misunderstanding that the above sentence is refering to a single work called "Neyrangistan, Hirbodistan, Hadokht Nask"; even though it clear from the context (as well as from reality) that three different texts are referenced here. Next, this misunderstanding was compounded by an unclear understanding of the other source being cited in the article (ie. Studies in Zoroastrian Exegesis - Zand), which deals, among other things, with the Pahlavi commentary that was/is contained in the Hadokht nask, the Nerangestan text and the Herbedestan text. Lastly, the first source, and the origin of this confusion, got removed from the article at some point in time, which made it unclear where this mistake originated.Kjansen86 (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nels Van Patten

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. He is only mentioned in passing in the articles currently used. His father and brother are notable. Appears to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and New York. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America

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

Deletion discussion: I believe this article should be deleted, because it lacks notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnAdams1800 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it meets both GNG and the relevant SNG. We have significant coverage across a decent span of time and at least three reviews from major publications. Also note that this AfD appears to be malformed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK with multiple reviews by reliable sources. (The article was in a much different state when nominated, thanks to Horse Eye's Back for making major improvements to it.) Schazjmd (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Horse Eye's Back and Schazjmd. Passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Villanueva

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

Subject is only mentioned in passing in the one source. Could find no sources with WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:ANYBIO/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there is evidence that he produced a certified gold album, Tell All Your Friends. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey)

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

Unscourced BLP for a player who never played in a major league and does not meet guidelines at WP:SPORTBASIC. Kimikel (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sourcing on him aside from prospect sites. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. His Eurohockey profile indicates he played 25 years professionally. Surely there are sources in foreign languages? For example: Polish Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia Searching in Russian for hockey-related articles is a bit difficult due to the businessman Alexander Medvedev's involvement in hockey. Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey) also coached the U18 national team for Iceland. Did anyone search in a foreign language? It's rather frustrating that nobody has mentioned what was searched. Providing more details is helpful for working together. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching in English articles as well as Icelandic. I did a basic search on the Belarusian Telegraph Agency and it yielded nothing. Plus the other wikis don't have sources that attribute to a WP:BLP article anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addverb Technologies

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

The article on Addverb Technologies does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations as outlined in WP:ORG. Despite being a legitimate robotics and automation company, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources necessary to establish notability.

Most of the cited references are press releases, primary sources, or niche industry publications that fail to provide in-depth, independent analysis of the company. This contravenes Wikipedia's requirements under WP:RS. The article also demonstrates a promotional tone, focusing excessively on achievements and partnerships without balanced, independent critique, thereby breaching WP:NPOV.

Additionally, the editing history and the language used suggest potential issues of Undisclosed Paid Editing (UPE) or conflict of interest. Such concerns further undermine the neutrality and reliability of the article.

Without significant, independent, and reliable sources to establish the company's notability, the article fails to justify its inclusion on Wikipedia and should be considered for deletion.--Jaypung (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. 3, 8 and 4, 17 and duplicate references. Taabii (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koushik Ghosh (mathematician)

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

Like most assistant professors he does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Citations are too low for #C1, local awards are not enough for #C2, and editorial board membership (rather than editor-in-chief positions for a notable journal) are not enough for #C8. Publishing many works is not a notability criterion at all; it is the impact of the works that matters. My prod saying all this, and a prod2 by User:Bearian, were removed, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious promotionalism could potentially be fixed, but then we'd have a bland stub about a non-notable person. XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professor, does not satisfy WP:NPROF. This is a resume, but WP:NOTARESUME. Qflib (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I stated in seconding the proposed deletion, and as the nominee stated, assistant professors almost never are kept at AfD (especially living persons because of our more exacting standards). He has been at that level for 18 years without getting tenure, the minimum standard for English Wikipedia. Teaching 14 different courses over 18 years isn't unusual, nor is editing, reviewing, supervising students' research, poster presentations, and all the myriad other things that non-tenured professors are forced to do. He works at a Tier A Accredited university that is the 3rd highest ranking out of 8. Three of his most cited papers are in Pattern Recognition, which is an important yet obscure sub-field. He has won some awards, but not one of the five highest honors by the International Mathematical Union. In sum, the objective evidence is that he's a very diligent professor, but who is not notable as we define it. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 8

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

Article is WP:TOOSOON. Article is full of WP:CRYSTAL and speculation, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The spacecrafts that are purportedly flying this test are still being built and no details are known. This could easily be covered in List of Starship launches#Future launches until such a time that there is sigcov for this test and enough information to construct an article. RachelTensions (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This will be the next flight of Starship, and many details are known. The ship is ready for cryo testing, too. Canadien1867 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)— Canadien1867 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

agreed CasonPlayzYT (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There will be certainly a Flight 8, perhaps delayed since what happened to IFT-7, so I vote to keep the page and update it with details as we receive them. Besides, I usually monitor the Portuguese Wikipédia Starship pages, which is interlinked with the English one. It would be a bummer to have details in other languages but not in English. ThiagoSousaSilveira (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we will see more information about flight 8 in the coming days, now that flight 7 is over and both b15 and s34 are well into testing Canadien1867 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Launch is quite notable, has no WP:Crystal violations, and is far from WP:TOOSOON Redacted II (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? All sources but one are either a direct link to an Elon tweet, or what is essentially a fansite with no editorial oversight or factchecking policies to be found. RachelTensions (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s the next flight. If the article is deleted it’ll just need to be recreated again shortly after since flight 8 will happen within weeks 73.210.30.217 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted it’ll just need to be recreated again shortly after That's great, I never said the event would never be notable or have significant coverage... just not yet.

flight 8 will happen within weeks Seems like WP:SPECULATION on your part. RachelTensions (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

flight 8 will absolutely not happen in weeks, considering the result of flight 7.

it will likely trigger a mishap investigation by the FAA, turning weeks into months

Earliest official estimates are roughly early-mid March, which isn't exactly "within weeks" Canadien1867 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

source that it triggered an investigation by the FAA? StateoftheUnionStrong (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the "fansite with no editorial oversight or fact-checking policies to be found" you are referring to is NASASpaceFlight.com, the website is actually considered a reliable source according to Talk:SpaceX Starship/FAQ Max1298 (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out here (and in the F9 deletion thread), NASASpaceflight is reliable, and calling them a "fansite with no editorial oversight" is practically defamatory. Redacted II (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of reliable sources, including NASASpaceflight which is considered reliable. Definitely not TOOSOON given the sources we have. User3749 (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the "plenty" of reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of this event? Even if we consider NASASpaceflight reliable, that's the only independent reliable source the article currently contains, and likely the only reliable source providing any sigcov to this event at this point.
That's only one reliable source providing any significant coverage. RachelTensions (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, current sourcing is insufficient and what will happen is rather unsure at the moment. Claiming that a source is reliable based on an obscure essay/FAQ page is not really convincing. But in any case the mentions on Nasaspaceflightcom are insufficient to establish notability as of now. Fram (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anythink else is waste of work and creates confusion. --Usp (talk) 15:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with other comments above. A quick Google search turned up mentions of flight 8 in an article from Ars Technica too, so I don't think lack of reliable sources is a major concern. SECProto (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there WP:SIGCOV in an Ars Technica article? The article I see is just a very small passing mention of the next flight: "If SpaceX can fly Starship again as soon as next month, it's possible the company could preserve its aims for the program this year." RachelTensions (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starship flight test 9

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

Article is WP:TOOSOON. Article is full of WP:CRYSTAL and speculation, and doesn't pass WP:GNG. The spacecrafts that are purportedly flying this test are still being built and no details are known. RachelTensions (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If both vehicles needing to be assembled is a requirement, then there goes Artemis II, Artemis III, Artemis IV, and so on.

That is obviously absurd. And there are signifcant details known about the flight.

(Also, really? Ctrl-c Ctrl-v complaints for F8 and F9?) Redacted II (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the articles for Artemis II, Artemis III, and Artemis IV have vastly more information contained within in them than this article, which is written based on pure speculation that is sourced to a few tweets and YouTube videos. RachelTensions (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NASASpaceflight is a WP:RS.

And yes, Artemis II III and so on are more fleshed out. But saying that the vehicles haven't been built means deletion is needed is, honestly, absurd. Redacted II (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify: the fact that the vehicles haven't been built is not a reason to delete the article, however it is likely one of the reasons we don't have enough information or coverage for an article yet.. The reason to delete the article is that we have no real details outside what is largely speculation, and we have no idea when those details will be coming (especially after today's event.)

Two relevant excerpts from the WP:SPECULATION policy are:
If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
and
As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient.

In this case, the event is not well documented, and the coverage of the events in reliable sources is insufficient outside of one (debatably) reliable source. There simply isn't enough information to form a useful article here yet. RachelTensions (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Preparation is in progress.

NASASpaceflight is (again) reliable. I don't see how that's even close to being debatable.

There is sufficient information to form a useful article. Even in its current form (and it will be expanded significantly in the next several month), it states:

S35/B16 will fly on Flight 9.

S35 and B16 will attempt a catch.

S35 will likely enter Low Earth Orbit.

B16 is Block 1, S35 is Block 2 (replicated elsewhere) Redacted II (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This test flight is going to happen with really high confidence. Thus there will be a article. Someone is willing/able to do the work now and things are known. Let them. Best place to create a arcticle is the article. --Usp (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to create an article for an event that does not yet have enough independent significant coverage or information is in a WP:DRAFT. Just because the event will happen eventually doesn't mean there has to be an article now, especially when we don't have significant coverage from anything more than maybe one reliable source. RachelTensions (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bradbrooke

AfDs for this article:

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

Bare mentions only, as in previous AFD. — Moriwen (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two of the references clearly state personal information about him and not just bare mentions. Furthermore he represented Great Britain, England and competed at the Commonwealth games, I can't see an issue with notability because of this. ApricotFoot (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see practically all except one is a paid subscription, making it hard to verify. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ref examples, ref2 states = The high jump was won by Edward Bradbrooke of Cambridge University and the Achilles Club. he is the son of Dr Bradbrooke of Bletchley and has represented England. He cleared 6 feet. ref 9 states= A memorable Event: The athletic sports were of their usual excellence and the last event, the high jump will not be forgotten by the spectators whose rapt attention was held by a duel between Edward Bradbrooke and E Turner, of Earlstown Viaduct, both of whom were due on the morrow to start on the journey across the Atlantic to represent their country.ApricotFoot (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think that WP:BEFORE was followed correctly for this AfD. Per WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors, @Moriwen, please add relevant WikiProjects to the article's talk page before nominating it for deletion. This article had no WikiProjects tagged so its deletion wouldn't appear on relevant article alerts pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Article alerts. --Habst (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the provided newspaper sources quoted above. It's also worth mentioning that the subject meets WP:NATH for his 5th-place finish at the 1930 Commonwealth Games. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the extent of the coverage in the paywalled refs are similar to the bare mentions in routine recaps quoted above, then the subject is nowhere close to meeting SPORTCRIT and GNG. Also a note that the suggestion to notify interested projects after nominating an AfD is absolutely not a requirement and is in fact very rare for nominators to do, and there is also zero obligation for a nominator to make sure every relevant project has been added to an article's talk page. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, this wasn't a case of just one or two WikiProjects being missing – the article had no projects tagged at all. There is always an obligation to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of your ability barring IAR, and I don't think they were followed in this case. --Habst (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. There is zero requirement for an article talk page be tagged with projects (and if there was it would be the responsibility of the article creator).
2. The section you link states it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD. It in no way obliges a nominator to notify anyone; in fact this nonexistent responsibility is equally shared by the "and others" in nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention.
3. The section you link isn't even part of BEFORE. JoelleJay (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I think there is a misunderstanding. I never used the words "requirement" or "obligation" in my original comment, you are using those words. The full sentence of your quote says (emphasis mine), "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors." Simply adding relevant WikiProjects to an article's talk page fulfills the point in the "Notify interested projects and editors" section hence the suggestion. Part of WP:BEFORE section C prong 3 is to address issues with associated WikiProjects, which adding the tags is one way of doing. I don't think that point was followed in this case. --Habst (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are accusing the nom of having "not followed BEFORE correctly" and stated there is "always an obligation to follow" P&Gs which you think was "not followed in this case". The items you are complaining about the nom not following do not exist anywhere in BEFORE, which isn't even a P&G. "Not having talk page project tags" is obviously not an issue with the article that would affect whether it should be nominated, hence why project tags are not mentioned until the "nominators and others sometimes want..." suggestion in AFTER. JoelleJay (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're using very harsh words like "accuse" to characterize my statements that I never used. Whether Wikipedia procedures are followed is often subjective, and in this case I don't think relevant WikiProjects were sufficiently notified so I fixed the issue myself. Notifying WikiProjects about article issues is in WP:BEFORE C3, and AFD (which includes BEFORE and AFTER) is the policy-based way that we delete pages here via WP:Deletion policy. Adding WP banners is part of the article improvement process and there's no reason to discourage that in this case. --Habst (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation that nominators notify WikiProjects. You chastised the nom about tagging projects as if not doing so was a deviation from our P&Gs when it is not even an expectation in the non-P&G BEFORE. The suggestion to consider whether the article can be improved through asking projects about specific issues is not an instruction that one should do so, and, given that tagging projects is only mentioned in a mild recommendation for any interested editors AFTER the AfD goes live, doesn't even encompass that action. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, I didn't use the word "obligation" because it's a funny word in that we're all volunteers here so the best we can do is try our best. I greatly respect your work as well as the nominator's; was simply saying that notifying relevant parties about an AfD that could be contentious is a positive thing to do that should be encouraged, and it wasn't done in this case. --Habst (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is always an obligation to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to the best of your ability barring IAR, and I don't think they were followed in this case. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't use the word "obligation" in my original comment at Special:Diff/1269077727. The one you're quoting was in response to you using that word. Like I said, it's a funny word to use for sure other than in a context of saying we should try our best, which is what I was communicating there. --Habst (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Smith

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Not clear that the incident itself has longterm significance.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Katrina Leung, for now. Honestly, we should probably cover them all in one scandal article, but he is notable for being her handler and for the fallout. The event is very notable [39] [40] [41] PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

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

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

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

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

Fabio Louzada

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable banker. Sources are mostly brief (WP:TRIVIALMENTION/WP:INTERVIEW) quotes in news outlets ([42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]). There are also some sources that don't mention him at all ([49], [50], [51], [52]) and a pay-to-play WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview. Nothing in WP:BEFORE search indicates notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Brazil. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Diamond (wrestler born 1935)

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, there's no source (even one) that provides significant coverage to help establish notability. WP:GNG is also not met. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Wrestling, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. ([53][54]) Could be more coverage out there in wrestling magazines. I had to search using his real name (Paul Lehman) instead of his ring name because the results were confused with the other wrestler named Paul Diamond. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Ostrow

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

Not sufficient on WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United States of America. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. Royiswariii Talk! 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak delete I was able to find this Forbes article and this Los Angeles Times article, but other than that doesn't really meet WP:GNG. The article is also POV in nature. TNM101 (chat) 16:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, SIMBAD show six references which are all catalogues and do not provide significant coverage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting Extinction

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

I see no evidence this passes WP:NORG. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Primary Criteria" section in WP:NORG states "presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Multiple references on the page pass this criteria (BBC Video, Guardian, The Sunday Times). Other reputable sources not mentioned on the Rewriting Extinction page (ITV, The Independent) have featured Rewriting Earth (and formerly Rewriting Extinction) and their campaigns.

In the Guardian article and BBC video, Rewriting Extinction is the subject of the piece.

As per the Guardian: "Rewriting extinction: Ricky Gervais joins celebrities creating comics to save species", "Ricky Gervais is the latest celebrity to join an ambitious year-long storytelling campaign called Rewriting Extinction with the launch of a comic called Bullfight." The remainder of the article is a feature on Rewriting Extinction, in the form of an interview with its founder, Paul Goodenough. PersonDoingSomeEditing (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. A google search brought only blogs or websites that talk about the comics they have published. TNM101 (chat) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has changed its name to Rewriting Earth, but is still active. The obvious connection to renowned environmental activists, celebrities and important comic artists lends relevance. The article should be expanded to include current campaigns that have been reported on by the BBC, for example. It can be assumed that further campaigns will follow, as regular work appears to be taking place. Lavendelboy (chat) 09:48, 17 January 2025 (CET)

Win Wenger

AfDs for this article:

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

A fairly promotional biography for a consultant/PhD whose work is almost exclusively self-published. ("Psychegenics Press" appears to have published only works by Wenger; "Project Renaissance" is described as Wenger's own organization.) I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:NACADEMIC; his work does not appear to be very widely cited, and he did not appear to hold any qualifying academic appointment. I thought there might be a pass on WP:NAUTHOR for his one book published by a mainstream publisher, The Einstein Factor, but I could not find any full-length published reviews, including searches in JSTOR, Ebsco and ProQuest. And for WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, there is no WP:SIGCOV of him in independent sources. The sources are limited to: his own writing, a WP:USERGENERATED obituary, an obit from an organization he was affiliated with, his official bios, or places to buy his books online and WP:SPS blog posts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Maryland. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Dclemens has said everything that could be said about this topic. Polygnotus (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. If we had multiple reliably published reviews of multiple books it wouldn't matter that the publisher is non-mainstream but I couldn't find any, so we also have no evidence of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

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

Singular instance of an award, should merge to the main article's page, Collier Trophy Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid Eagle 20

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

Cannot find reliable sources for this boat. Possible redirect to List of multihulls to prevent deletion, but cannot find maker or any information about this craft except in sales adverts. Nayyn (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of multihulls. As the nominator states, this is definitely a boat which exists, but doesn't have sourcing to confirm notability for its own, separate, article. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kinta Kellas

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

Lack of independent notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NORG. Unsourced since its creation in 2005 and still nothing out there to prove that it is notable. Mekomo (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Social media, yelp ratings, gov't contracts awarded... That's the extent of sourcing I find. I don't see notability for this company Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiber

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

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

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

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

SEI Club

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

Wholly promotional, failing neutrality and notability standards. Fails WP:ORG. Dubious sources with no editorial oversight and promotional tone. For example, the GQ article says, "the company offers something many have never considered: a coaching system that refines their approach to dating and relationships." The Businessworld article claims, "SEI Club's success is solely because of its exhaustive screening process and high knockback rate." Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shold the press only be negative? why does positive content equate a lack of notability? Are things in this world never "good"? In some cases the "truth" might in fact be positive. 216.15.110.195 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What negative press are you seeing? It's all positive, or neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Yahoo article is fine, GQ doesn't have a listed author... I found this [55], contributor piece but it was "reviewed by editorial staff" so I suppose it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shar Pei Lab

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

I do not believe this crossbreed is notable; it is only recognised by one organisation (which is not a major kennel club) and has practically no coverage in reliable sources. I previously PROD'ed this, but that was removed so I'm taking it here. CoconutOctopus talk 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. CoconutOctopus talk 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicola (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, best addressed with hatnote. Gjs238 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen). Not even sure the hatnote is necessary to be honest, but definitely don't think there's any need for a disambiguation page for a local news blog that isn't notable enough to have its own article. MCE89 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) as an alternate spelling, e.g. Publius Valerius Poplicola, Quintus Pedius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) per Clarityfiend. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is already redirect Publicola, is not Publicola (disambiguation) an unnecessary disambiguation? Gjs238 (talk)

True. It was titled Poplicola (disambiguation) (which influenced my original !lvote), before I took a closer look and moved it. Deletion is also acceptable, since I also added a hatnote to Publius Valerius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after including the website in the hatnote at the main Publicola article, as I've just done. PamD 14:17, 17 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 Procedural Close‎. I Draftified the article earlier prior to nomination, now it is already a redirect to a draft page (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Reid

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

This author fails WP:GNG due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Junbeesh (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you advise me what would constitute a reliable source in this instance. Would traditional publisher's websites be ok? Jonathan Emmett (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is of a non-notable branch of the Jemaah Islamiya. WP:BEFORE search founds nothing that discusses the subject in depth and not merely mention. The only source does not even discuss the group in depth but of that of its leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Maybe a merge with the article about the leader would suffice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but not strongly opposed to a merge. I basically agree with the consensus of the last AfD for this article, where all participants broadly agreed on a weak keep and felt that a merge with Noordin Mohammad Top wasn't a terrible option but that it might not be ideal given that the group continued to exist after his death. That AfD also surfaced quite a few useful sources that indicate some notability (the best probably being [56] [57] [58]), although unfortunately a couple of the other links are now dead or paywalled. In addition to the sources from the last AfD, these books [59] [60] [61] [62] provide some discussion of the group, and a search of "Al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago" on Google Scholar turns up a number of non-trivial mentions from as recently as 2022. To be fair, I'm not able to find anything that goes into a great deal of depth, but I'm inclined to say it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Given that the group existed after he died I agree with the above that it is not a great merge target. We can have a serviceable article on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 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. ✗plicit 14:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaNaDr

AfDs for this article:

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

A previous article was deleted at AFD a year ago. The present article was created a few months ago, covering recent action against the firm by the Singapore Ministry of Health. Searches find this Straits Times item concerning other providers' reactions to that situations (and perhaps Healthcare_in_Singapore#Private_healthcare should be extended to cover telehealth). However WP:CORP indicates that regulatory actions and their coverage are not in themselves indicative of notability of a particular firm, so it seems appropriate to bring this to AFD as it doesn't seem there is enough in-depth coverage to overturn the previous deletion consensus. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and Singapore. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Agree with the nominator. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mekomo (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dimanche v. Brown

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

Non-notable, WP:ROTM legal case that is principally created to add credence to Moliere Dimanche (see also: WP:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche and User talk:NovembersHeartbeat)Spiralwidget (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement:

1. Vandalism: This user Spiralwidget has repeatedly vandalized this topic. In his nomination for deletion of the page for Moe Dimanche he states that Dimanche is "prominent" in the case law, and then states that he doesn't know much about "American legal stuff", but projects himself as an expert on legal case notability here. This is vandalism, and in American jurisprudence, Dimanche v. Brown has been cited in 178 new opinions be United States judges. That means this case law helped our highest courts establish new case law, and will continue to do so forever. Virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, and the 178 citations is just from judges rendering opinions. That doesn't count the many more times litigants have used the citation to protect there positions in our district courts, our appellate courts, and in the Supreme Court of the United States. This is an actual law, and has been one since 2015.

I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NovembersHeartbeat (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If virtually every prominent legal publication cites the law for setting precedent, can you provide a list of some of them? Ca ^{talk to me!} 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. This whole thing just discouraged me from further involvement in being a wikipedia editor altogether. Kind of has me feeling like I'm offending people without meaning to, so forgive me for not seeing your comment. And thank you for being willing to see more about this. So with case law, they're not actually lawsuits. What happens is that when lawsuits are filed in district courts, and somebody gets a ruling they don't like, they appeal to the circuit courts. If the circuit court issues an opinion on the case, and that opinion gets published, it becomes a law, and it is binding. Roe v. Wade started out as a lawsuit, Brady was a lawsuit, Gideon was a lawsuit, but those cases became law after either a circuit court or the Supreme Court published a written opinion to resolve it. I thought that the fact that it was a law made it noteworthy enough. If I didn't include the relevant citations in the article, that's my fault, but here are a few for you to consider. The Human Rights Defense Center issues a publication called Prison Legal News that circulates information about new case law that promotes human rights. In its 26th Edition, they touched on Dimanche v. Brown: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/publications/volume-1-detention-and-corrections-caselaw-catalog-26th-ed-2016/. They spoke about the First Amendment and the use of chemical agents in retaliation against inmates. The citations used in the article demonstrate how prominent organizations cited Dimanche v. Brown to protect their interests, from the ACLU, to the Institute for Justice, Dimanche v. Brown is helpful in arguing what is precedential when it comes to protecting human rights. Columbia University did a piece on improvements to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that can be found here: https://jlm.law.columbia.edu/files/2021/02/21.-Chapter-14.pdf. They state:

"Suppose you follow the grievance rules, but get a grievance decision rejecting your grievance and claiming wrongly that you didn’t follow the rules. Courts have generally been willing to examine incarcerated people’s compliance with the rules independently rather than being bound by what grievance officials say about it."

Here, they cited to Dimanche v. Brown to encourage students and litigants that courts look at the totality of the circumstances instead of taking grievance officials at their word. Additionally, Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, a partner of the Department of Justice, published its monthly law journal on retaliation case law, found here: https://www.aele.org/law/Digests/jailretaliation.html. Dimanche v. Brown was, again, listed as a case where the courts opt to not take prison officials at their word when grievance mechanisms are in question. These are just publications who find helpful laws that can help their readers, but where you will find the true value in the law is here: https://casetext.com/case/dimanche-v-brown-2/how-cited?citingPage=1&sort=relevance. It is primarily for use by attorneys, but as you can see, the law was cited 178 times by courts in the United States as a foundational point to settle law, and its 18 pages of new laws being set with Dimanche v. Brown giving the courts guidance. As you can see, in 2023 the 11th Circuit published another law, Sims v. FDOC (https://casetext.com/case/sims-v-secy-fla-dept-of-corr-1?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q=), and the entire section 4 of that law was founded on Dimanche. v. Brown. Keep in mind, Dimanche v. Brown became law 10 years ago, and it was used as a founding point of reason to resolve an entirely new 11th Circuit opinion in 2023. It is a very important case to people who litigate prison civil rights cases. Finally, in its articles on Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, & Government and Administrative Law, Justia published a synopsis on Dimanche v. Brown: https://us11thcircuitcourtofappealsopinions.justia.com/2015/04/18/dimanche-v-brown/. It has its place in civil rights, human rights and prisoner rights litigation, and many litigants rely on it to get justice in their cases because a lot of inmates face retaliation for filing inmate grievances, and when they see that somebody prevailed under the same circumstances, they tell the courts that the 11th Circuit has already recognized how bad the retaliation is in the prisons. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to compile all the sources. I am sorry for the late response; The notification system didn't seem have worked for some reason. My knowledge in law is very limited, so I can't judge how important the case is. Still, many legal publications have included the case in their, I am guessing, list of precedences, so I would definitely support a section in the Moe Dimanche article. However, most of the above sources are a simple synopsis of case, which one could get simply by reading the court filings. There are not much in terms of secondary analysis in the cited sources. Wikipedia is not a mere compendium of legal cases, so I'd support a merge to its parent article. Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Police, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but I am happy to be proven wrong. I am not well-versed in the laws, so it is possible that I am missing some major source that I could look for coverage. However, a search on Google Scholar, Google, Google News, and Google Books did not return any usable source(that is, reliable and independent). Currently, this article has an WP:original research problem since the topic has zero secondary analysis by reliable sources. This article is also heavily WP:REFBOMBed with primary documents of the lawsuit. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel like my essay WP:NPOV deletion applies here, since lawsuits are naturally a contentious topic. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a level-3 fake header (same as the real header of the entire AfD) is confusing. Reduced to level 4. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - I think ordinarily we might agree on !delete for this kind of thing, on the basis of WP:NOTEVERYTHING and a lack of secondary sources. We are not a legal dictionary. On the other hand.. it feels like laws which affect people are a special case, and there could be a lot of things to assess and !delete on this precedence. There are sources, in particular I think this one shows that the case has been cited many times in other cases. I don't know how to parse this stuff, I'm hoping others with better knowledge and legal nouce can give us direction. JMWt (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am open to changing my vote with the opinion of a legal expert, but I believe this should be kept. The case has been cited 178 times in 10 years. The article does have some issues with original research and puffery, but I believe the article can be improved with someone knowledgeable of law who is not related to the subject. Of possible relevance, I separately voted delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche in part on the basis that the plaintiff is not notable, but the case is notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Smith (umpire)

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail since the only source is the CricInfo database and a passing mention on the Cricket Ireland website. This guy is literally an umpire.

DePROD'd by St. Anselm with the comment "international umpires - yes, even umpires - are generally notable", however, participation-based notability was deprecated by WP:NSPORTS2022. Nobody is notable simply because of where they've played or officiated. If this person were notable in the world of cricket, or in Ireland, you would expect significant coverage of them, and that doesn't appear to exist. FOARP (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Ireland, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 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.

Withdrawn based on a more detailed search of Wisden - searching without quotation marks brings up his obituary, and whilst it's very marginal for SIGCOV it's worth giving a chance. ‎. FOARP (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfred Bird

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail since the only coverage is in databases, a passing-mention in an auto-biography ("I remember three first-rate wicket-keepers: Wilfred Bird and A.C.P. Arnold, both killed in the war, and R.S.M. White."), and a brief mention in a listicle on a non-RS site. Since this young man was sadly cut down in his prime during WW1 it is unlikely that anything more would be found.

DeProd'd by St. Anselm on the grounds of "significant coverage in Wisden". However, a search of the Wisden Almanac using this tool brings up only one hit, an unrelated story about a bird being killed by a fast-bowler dated 1937. Even accounting for poor OCR, it seems likely that any coverage here will anyway be along the lines of passing mentions in match reports, if that. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and United Kingdom. FOARP (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008 Texas vs. Oklahoma football game

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:NSPORTSEVENT, individual games must be extraordinary or have a lasting impact on the sport to be notable. The fourth bullet found in the guideline provides the best analog for this article; I quote here A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g., The Malice at the Palace, 2009 Republic of Ireland v France football matches, or the Blood in the Water match). Certainly this match doesn't come close to the examples given.

Source analysis is as follows:

1) routine scores

2) routine match coverage

3) sports column covering the team rivalry, which, as it happens, isn't notable per WP:NRIVALRY. In any case, no mention of the match itself.

4) routine polls; no mention

5) see 2)

6) less than passing mention in a list. As it happens, the source isn't the NYTimes, as listed, but a site dedicated to covering the Texas Longhorns.

7) No mention

8) This is the most substantial of the lot, having several paragraphs of summary in a list by an independent? sports site. But one source does not substantial coverage make.

9) Passing mention

10) Routine coverage

11) Passing mention

And per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SBST, passing mentions and routine coverage don't count towards notability.

Online searches turn up routine coverage, except for [63], which I can't access due to the paywall but seems to be routine sports coverage nonetheless, and [64], which, as a summary used to gin up hype for the next game in the rivalry, is also routine and thus not extraordinary.

Please note that there has been a previous AfD on the article subject. The main difference from then is that we now have WP:NSPORTSEVENT. It seems to me that long-standing consensus tilts against dedicated match coverage, as in this article. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 08:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the thorough nomination.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, American football, Oklahoma, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROTM rivalry game. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Red River Rivalry#2004–2009. That's a lot of detail about a very routine game. Per nom, the sources don't establish that this was a particularly significant game beyond that both teams had done well that year and it was reasonably high scoring. It's also already covered at 2008 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Texas (Red River Rivalry), 2008 Texas Longhorns football team#Oklahoma, 2008 Texas Longhorns football team#45–35 campaign and BCS controversy, and 2008 Big 12 Conference football season#Texas–Oklahoma. Reywas92^Talk 14:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Royiswariii Talk! 16:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Routine coverage of a WP:MILL topic. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and source analysis. Run-of-the-mill with no lasting impact. I see no value in redirecting either. Frank Anchor 20:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pride Flix

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

Fails WP:Notability apparently has created 3 movies but there is no coverage and no mention of those on web except for imdb, the claims have no citations to be verified as well Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Entertainment. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should try to improve the article first. If one can't find sources talking about it via google that could be because the sites talking about it are not indexed/crawled. It could also be a problem with Google's algorithm, because it is returning results for PrideFLIX (a streaming website) and a PrideFlix, a catalogue of LGBTQ movies.

I am against deletion for now. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For it to be included as a live article, not only should this have "sites talking about it" but reliable at that too, it can surely be improved if you are willing to find reliable sources to fix the article while the discussion is in progress. Good luck @TurboSuperA+. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you put a notice on the article creator's talk page that the article is up for deletion? Perhaps put a notice on WT:LGBTQ+ as well. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TurboSuperA+ commenting that if i put a notice on the article creator’s talk page without checking it, is highly irrelevant to this discussion and thank you for suggesting me to add this to LGBTQ+ related discussions as well. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 11:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a question, not an attempt to add to the discussion, but not checking the creator's user page was my mistake. I only checked it after I had posted my comment. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to be covered in any source other than those belonging to it or a niche. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 08:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Sexuality and gender. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a direct to video outfit, but it's gone now. I don't see notability for the three films, with no reviews or much of anything listed...The company isn't notable, due to the lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irvin Abela

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this Maltese footballer to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Malta. JTtheOG (talk) 07:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unknown hobby player. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hobby player? What do you mean? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Found nothing in Maltese either. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jenkins

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

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've helped expand the article with additional sources. My view is still to keep and then rename, but if the consensus is that this is not notable enough for inclusion at this time, I would ask that the article be draftified as WP:TOOSOON rather than deleted. This is already a relatively significant international incident and it seems likely to turn into a much bigger one if Jenkins' death is confirmed. If Australia does expel a foreign ambassador for the first time in 12 years, it seems pretty clear that an article on that event would be notable. MCE89 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep or Draftify there's been a blaze of coverage, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to know if he or the incident is truly notable or just news. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis School, Greater Noida West

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. No such sources found to qualify GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that draftifying the article would be optimal. If proof can be found that this school actually does operate worldwide and enrolls thousands of students then this is likely a notable subject. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Christianity. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. This article appears to match the content of Draft:St. Francis School, Greater Noida by same editor, who by username has a COI. Not clear what the "West" distinguishing detail is for the topic. But I also don't see notability for this school (if consensus to delete rather than draftify, then the draft presumably should also be deleted). DMacks (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biplab Satpati

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

The subject does not pass WP:ACADEMICS. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Education, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok delete it. I am leaving wikipedia btw. This is really depressing. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hypothetical Painter Pls read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Taabii (talk) 09:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An assistant professor who doesn't pass WP:NPROF. 268 total citations and an h-index of 9 is a long way off meeting C1, and I wasn't able to find any indication of major awards, editor positions, memberships etc. that could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. MCE89 (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF and GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not meeting PROF, appears to not be a highly-cited individual. Career is routine otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors do not usually meet our standards for academic notability (the rare exceptions are often those with major international awards showing that they're already a star and their academic rank hasn't caught up). I see no evidence that this one is any exception. Citation record is not yet strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Fresh

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted as promo in 2020, recreated by a 57-edits account in 2022. Fails WP:NCORP.

[65] Fails WP:ORGIND, this source's entire content is the CEO talking about her own company.
[66] Fails ORGIND, most of the article is a regurgitation of a press release by a company that partnered with Teddy Fresh
[67] Clearly a promotional ad, complete with price tags for the products and an unreasonably large collection of pictures of them
[68] WP:ORGTRIV, routine announcement of products, the original commentary on the company is a negligibly small part of the article
[69] Routine announcement, looks like a press release
[70] This is just an advertisement, complete with price tags and the pictures of the products.
[71] Barely passes WP:ORGDEPTH, since a great part of this article is about the CEO talking about her own company
[72] Another trivial announcement of products. The parts of this article that aren't the CEO talking about her own company are simple descriptions of the company's latest released products. There's not enough original, in-depth commentary on the company. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Fashion. Badbluebus (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Heart ^(talk) 06:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: the Uproxx sources are fine, we have some non-primary coverage of the brand/company. Not very much, but I think it's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Uproxx source states that "Disclaimer: Uproxx may receive payment to direct readers to certain retail vendors who are offering these products for purchase." Looks unreliable to me. Badbluebus (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do about the reliability of their content. It's about the ads and any related affiliate links, they are usually legally required to state this transparency. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, the Uproxx references would not be reliable for notability as they are written by contributors so I would say they are similar to WP:FORBESCON. However, this reference in WWD doesn't just "barely pass." Yes, it has a lot of quotes but it goes in-depth about the company with information written by the staff writer. I also think this one in the Business Insider was missed in the WP:BEFORE. Not only does it meet WP:CORPDEPTH, look at the bio of the writer (complete opposite of the Uproxx writer). --CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: There isn't much, but there is some coverage. WP:SIGCOV says there's no set number, but we're right on the edge here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources provided by Badbluebus and the explanation of CNMall4. Gedaali (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It makes no sense to argue for Keep based on User:Badbluebus's review of sources as they were very critical of the sources present. I don't see editors arguing Keep rebut most of their evaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The WWD and Insider sources are enough to provide WP:SIGCOV (barely, but if we're being fair, the sources are there). They also meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political houseparty

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

One of a set of unsourced stubs explaining political things that need no explanation. This could likely be expanded by padding, but as it is I'm dubious anyone even uses this name. Mangoe (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a handful of sources that mention this being a thing, but I couldn't find anything to suggest it merits an article. No indication that this is a widespread or widely covered practice. MCE89 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources whatsoever. Created in 2006, and tagged as unsourced since December 2009. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Sigh. Am I really that old? I'm not sure why Coffee klatch and Retail campaign were both deleted, because either would be a good redirect. This subject was an important political process, but isn't well-documented in the Internet age. It was well documented in books in the 19th and 20th centuries. It still happens in the 21st century, but is nowadays treated as weird by Gen Z or only for advocating issues. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My issue here isn't that there isn't such a thing; it's that these articles pull various elements of campaigning into their own little boxes out of context. Yes, of course you're going to find people mentioning doing these sorts of things. But they are just one way of getting groups of like-minded people together to generate enthusiasm for a candidate. Again, prove me wrong by making a substantial article. Mangoe (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the page is poorly sourced and written, but the concept is important and notable, as one can verify by checking sources in Google books or scholar. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can editors arguing to Keep list some sources that can improve this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This article is unsourced, and that definitely needs fixing. However, it discusses what seems to be an important concept, so if there's hope that sources can be found that meet WP:GNG, I think we should give it a chance.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I followed the !voter above's advice and googled it. All I found were blogs, SEO sites, Wikipedia mirrors and other unreliable sources. If the purpose is to define this term, within the broader context of house parties, it fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. If its purpose is to show this is a unique concept with substantial discussion, it fails WP:GNG for lack of SIGCOV in reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article has been unsourced for nearly 19 years.Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. As it stands now, it's an unsourced dictionary definition. If someone in the future identifies enough reliable sources talking about this concept on its own to merit its own article, no prejudice against recreating said article. But it should not be a simple dictionary definiton, no matter how many paragraphs that definition takes up. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internal enemy

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column. I don’t see how this article could ever go beyond a definition stub unless it gets overloaded with random examples. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding delete/merge with Fifth Column as suggested by RakdosWitch. Sinclairian (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Can't be Merged to Fifth Column as this page is a redirect, not an article. Please check links before you suggest a page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column for reasons provided by RakdosWitch. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused by the relister's statement that this page is a redirect, not an article. The nominated version certainly isn't a redirect, and I'm not seeing any point in the page history at which it was. Fifth Column is a redirect to Fifth column, but surely any !vote to merge/redirect to the former is really talking about the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantry sells… but who’s buying? Obviously meant Fifth column RakdosWitch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons already given (primarily DICTDEF). I'm not sure a redirect is even needed. I highly doubt people are searching the term "internal enemy" on Wikipedia. That said, I won't strongly oppose a redirect to Fifth column (there, did I use the right link?) if others think it's warranted rather than it being a redlink. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pennington (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Heart ^(talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaun Cassidy#Personal life perhaps? Procyon117 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hila Klein

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

I don't see enough reliable sources that talk about Klein in depth. The few sources in this article that are not gossipy or clearly unreliable are either centered on the youtube channels she co-hosted with her husband (H3 Podcast, H3H3productions) or the fashion company she founded (Teddy Fresh). Although the podcasts and the company could be notable, she is not. It is possible that this page could be redirected to any of those articles. My source eval is the following:

[73] Fails WP:INDEPENDENT and SIGCOV, most of this article is Klein talking about her own company, there's not enough independent coverage of Klein herself
[74] Arguably reliable, but the source is more about Teddy Fresh than Hila Klein. It doesn't support the need for an article about her separate from Teddy Fresh.
[75] WP:SPORTSKEEDA
[76] Routine WP:DEXERTO article that doesn't discuss Klein in depth. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, Internet, Israel, United States of America, and California. Badbluebus (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could a combined Ethan and Hila Klein article be feasible? Right now it's just a redirect to h3h3Productions. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Further to Darth Stabro's observation, Ethan and Hila Klein and their two companies exhibit significant overlap and collectively satisfy the GNG. With ease. A merge of the four related topics would resolve the excessive fragmentation. Contrary to what was claimed, this nomination evaluates the references in the article rather than the sources, which conflicts with the NEXIST principle. This isn't critical, as an entirely new merge procedure is the best way forward. Still worth keeping in mind for future nominations. gidonb (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively no objection to discuss a merger here either. I assume we can't unless the debate is broadened early on and in consensus. Hence the procedural keep. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Merge, please identify an existing target article. I also don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep which typically is invoked with an inadequate or bad faith nomination and that is not the case here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, the merge target is right there: Ethan and Hila Klein! Hence the reference to Darth Stabro. I explicitly have built on his excellent input. Please provide a reference for what you describe as "typical". Also please explain why an opinion can't be atypical. "Typical" includes by definition space for exemptions. Every case is different. I clearly say alongside no objection to discuss a merger here either. When relisting an article or in the closure of AfDs, it's better not to concentrate too much on one participant so not to put anyone on a pedestal. Unless there happen to be positive things to say. Praise is hardly ever a problem. The procedural keep here is to allow a broader and constructive discussion on the Ethan and Hila Klein content, while not dictating in any way what Badbluebus must do or badly reflecting on the nomination. The nomination was in very good faith! I believe that the content can gain from a broader debate, possible through the merge procedure, yet I provided multiple options! gidonb (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thus far there is a consensus among all respondents to merge Hila Klein and three other articles, or at the very least one, into Ethan and Hila Klein. gidonb (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easher Austin

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

This subject is not eligible for an entry into Wikipedia as the references in the article are all primary and there is nothing elsewhere that can be added to the article to demonstrate their notability. The creator is the subject of the article himself. This is a significant COI. Centuristic (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Centuristic (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources pop up for this guy; clearly self-advertising. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Also not notable for youtube stuff, very low viewcount, 633 subs. Polygnotus (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty bad case of self-promotion. YouTube channel not notable. Procyon117 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

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

No sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 04:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agreed. I'm not sure how this article was moved out of draftspace to begin with. I don't view it as article-worthy, not without some extra sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hungarian State Railways (MÁV). It's the current form of that company after merging with Volánbusz. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. was formerly known as MÁV-START, which operated under this name from 2006 to 2024 before being renamed. You can find sources from before 2024 by searching for MÁV-START. – balint36 ^{passenger complaints} 23:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tengku Baharuddin

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

I do not see that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cumbria

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

Only links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Heart ^(talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its outdated as there are now only 2 districts. If kept I will update. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi

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

Non-notable American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR through roles in Doom Patrol (TV series), Soap Girl, Only the Brave (2006 film), The Nana Project and various Lifetime productions (see page, with a couple of reviews mentioning her cited), at least. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (coverage mentioning her roles include, almost at random https://deadline.com/2021/04/doom-patrol-hbo-max-five-recur-season-3-1234742555/ ; https://collider.com/doom-patrol-season-3-cast-sisterhood-of-dada/ https://www.abookof.us/talent-index/gina-hiraizumi https://www.thewrap.com/vivica-a-fox-new-the-wrong-movies-lmn-lifetime-movie-network/ (only mentioned twice but to verify the roles) https://2paragraphs.com/2020/03/actress-gina-hiraizumi-flaunts-natural-boob-job-in-lacy-bra/ (really not great but indicates 2 other noted roles in popular series) etc ; might also been considered a prolific actress thus meeting WP:NACTOR's second criterion (https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/gina-hiraizumi/credits/3000481836/)[reply]
my signed comment above was expanded by myself (see below) -Mushy Yank. 07:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign and then expanded my comment in the same block, but all right, I'll sign again at the bottom.-Mushy Yank. 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

InDevR

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

This is a seemingly non-notable biotech company. None of their products appear to have widespread usage. There is almost no independent coverage of the company. Searching for them on Google only has five pages of results, almost all of which originate from the company. Additionally, there are articles for some of their products: AmpliPHOX, FluChip, and Virus counter (though Virus counter is currently under a different company). Searching for these products on PubMed only yields primary sources, most of which seem to have been done by InDevR or in collaboration with people at InDevR. Furthermore, these four articles all appear to have been created and primarily written by people who work at InDevR as at least three of the editors share their username with current and past workers there and their only activity on Wikipedia was editing these articles. Velayinosu (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Science. Velayinosu (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons stated in the nomination of InDevR for deletion:

AmpliPHOX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
FluChip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virus counter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Velayinosu (talk) 03:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team

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

College volleyball season with no indication of notability. The sources are all either trivial mentions, at least 1.5 years old, or don't mention the team at all. An online search doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe the team itself warrants an article but even that is not clearly established. I struggle to come up with a scenario where a college sports team's single season warrants a dedicated article. This season does not come close to notability. The content is largely promotional and the handful of references are weak and often quite old. An extreme example is the list of TV announcers which includes as a reference for one of the announcers an article from 2007. An 18 year old article that doesn't mention Menlo Oaks is neither reliable nor relevant to this team's 2025 season.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sharin Yamano

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

This is the pen name of an individual who is known for writing an anti-Korean manga series. While the series is absolutely notable in itself (and its article is quite interesting), that doesn't warrant an extra article about its anonymous author who is only known for creating that specific work. Anonymous 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Anime and manga, Japan, and Korea. Anonymous 03:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manga Kenkanryu - a plausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manga Kenkanryu per nom. To be honest, I was considering doing this myself about a month ago when I rewrote the Manga Kenkanryu article, but I didn't feel like it at the time. Link20XX (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Manga Kenkanryu per nom, I search into the depths of Japanese sources (i.e Natalie, Oricon, RealSound, and other non-entertainment sources I know) and still none even the Japanese wikipage is not helping. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above seefooddiet (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Dee

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

I am unable to find any in-depth coverage of this American former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Tennessee. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

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

Soybean46 (talk · contribs) tagged this article for deletion and added the nomination subpage to the daily list, but did not actually create the subpage. Nonetheless, a rationale was given in an edit summary: Nominated article for deletion, doesnt meet SIGCOV. I note that there are other tags since October 2015 that also indicate COI and OR issues, but my involvement here is entirely procedural and I offer no actual opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current sourcing in the article is terrible. Having said that, there is no option to delete here; per WP:BANDMEMBER we need to either redirect to Above & Beyond (band), or keep as a seperate article. To keep as a seperate article then evidence is needed to show McGuiness is notable independently of the bands he plays in. On a quick search the following are evidence supporting independent notability: DJ Mag Germany, DJ Mag Latin America, EDM.com. I will look for further sources when I have time. ResonantDis_tortion 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Philippine Air Lines DHC-3 Otter crash

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

This aviation incident does not appear to meet WP:NEVENT / WP:GNG. I find no evidence of secondary coverage at the time (although that is perhaps no surprise given the time that has passed; if you find them please ping me), and the sources in the article are limited the WP:USERGENERATED Flight Safety Foundation wiki and a WP:SPS site based on the wiki, plus a couple WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. I also see no evidence of long-term/lasting effects that would satisfy WP:LASTING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, lack WP:LASTING Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources I find are mentions, unreliable, or advertorials. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Greece. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Habermann

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

Per question raised by User:Maineartists at Wikipedia:Help_desk#copyvio. Page was created in 2005 as a verbatim copy of the musician's own webpage at the time. See the 2004 archive of the musician's website https://web.archive.org/web/20040204000620/http://www.michaelhabermann.com/ and the initial 2005 version of our article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Habermann&oldid=24277064 There is no copyright mention on the archived musician's website so we have to assume it was copyrighted. His current page, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/ is copyrighted 2001, and the ABOUT MICHAEL HABERMANN subpage, https://www.michaelhabermann.com/about/_index.html is unchanged from the version we copied in 2005. There are only minor differences between the current article and the initial 2005 version, and the cited sources are simple bio entries, so in my opinion this is a WP:TNT situation. The entire article should be deleted as a copyvio, and recreated with independent sources if warranted. Meters (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, France, Canada, Mexico, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even after all these years, CopyVio still reports 79.3% similarity to the subject's web site.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Maineartists (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

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

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated some news sources, feel free to check it out. HKFighter (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all look to be from the club's own website? Ergo, not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some secondary coverage added, looks like player signings and an interview (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Holman

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and lacks proper reliable sourcing OhNoKaren (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Television, Health and fitness, Arizona, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination

Nayyn (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Du Cane

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, only source is a broken link OhNoKaren (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be notable at all. Also lacks any sources. Perfecnot (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Health and fitness, Martial arts, Africa, England, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like vanity page to me. Doesn't pass wiki guidelines for SIG COV as per nom. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ignis Asset Management

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

Created and worked on by a single purpose editor. A search for sources found routine coverage, mainly covering how this company was acquired by another (non notable company). Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, England, and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge anything still relevant to the Standard Life article.^[1] Does not meet standalone article criteria. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newsbreak (magazine)

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and lacks proper sourcing. Could be a section on parent company's page but does not warrants its own page OhNoKaren (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Award winning publication. Please explain this nomination. pburka (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rappler couldn't find any sources that are WP:SECONDARYSOURCE to the subject. The keep vote above is not policy related. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rappler. Rappler § Newsbreak also exists, so I guess a merge may be suitable if there are contents from this article that can be merged. But for now, I'm leaning to a redirect. Keep per WP:WEBCRIT and GRuban's rationale. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per pburka, award winning publication. The reference links are poorly done, which makes it not obvious that third party newspapers also write about the magazine, but they do, I'll fix some; however the awards would make it a keep anyway. User:Miminity is incorrect, awards absolutely do make a news site notable, that's called WP:WEBCRIT. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

Bonner, Raymond (25 July 2005). "Editors Tackle Taboos With Girlish Glee". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 16 January 2025. Long, indepth article from the foremost newspaper in the US.
Cruz, Carmela (October 12, 2009). "Muckraking in Manila". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 16 January 2025. Not completely devoted to the magazine, but more than a casual mention. Among the lines: "For the next several years, Newsbreak gained a reputation for its dogged investigative reporting and lively attacks on the malfeasance of the Philippines’ holy trinity: politics, the military, and the Catholic Church."
Goodno, James B. (November 2, 2009). "Staying Alive in Mindanao". Foreign Policy. Archived from the original on 2021-01-24. Retrieved 16 January 2025. About a specific issue of the magazine.

Secondary sources, gentle editors. --GRuban (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, thanks. I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Books Be Books per SNOW, but I can't really do that here given the "redirect" votes. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NYTimes piece is about the magazine's editors, I could see a merge to Marites D. Vitug. IgelRM (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. It's not about the editors' family lives, or their favorite sports teams, or their taste in fashion, or where they went to school, or where else they worked, or anything else that could be described as being about them in any way other than their work making this magazine. It's about this magazine. This magazine isn't an animal or a mountain or an ocean. It doesn't exist apart from the people who make it. It does not write itself. --GRuban (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ultimately seems fine, notability seems at the very least established. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could be improved but I agree the the subject is notable. Newsbreak's investigative reports have been quoted by various publications and a libel case against it's staff got significant coverage. -

Crisantom (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APS Payroll

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article was created by @Rachelaps, who claims to be an employee for APS Payroll on their user page. Perfecnot (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Software, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this policy. We are in the process of engaging with a third-party vendor to manage our content. I will update this conversation once we have secured a third-party vendor to update our page. Thank you. Rachelaps (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If “third-party vendor” is a corporate euphemism for “random PR firm that we throw money at to edit our Wikipedia page for us”, please be aware that we have strict guidelines for editing in the presence of a conflict of interest. You should familiarize yourself with WP: COI. You should also be aware that paid editing outside of these guidelines is heavily looked down upon by the community and may lead to sanctions, including but not limited to a block from editing. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I wasn't aware of the policy. We would love if you keep the page up, but we will not make any more changes or updates to this page. Hopefully, in the future a client or partner will make an update to keep the page relevant. We now understand that we should not hire someone to update the page.

Thank you. Rachelaps (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Clients", "partners", or any other entity that you or your company has a financial relationship with also has a conflict of interest. You seem to be misunderstanding WP: COI as "we can't hire people to write our Wikipedia page for us", which is true but not a complete summary of what that policy forbids. I advise you to read the entirety of WP: COI and stay away from inducing any of your "partners" from making edits on your behalf. This is an encyclopedia, not a web host for whatever corporate mumbo-jumbo you've been cooking up for the past ten years. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize that I have offended you, that was not my intention. As I mentioned before, we will not update this page ever again. Thank you and have a great day. Rachelaps (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why you think I'm personally offended, but no problem. You're free to reach out on my Talk page if you have any questions about COI. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG. Could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Seemingly no actual sources conferring notability, COI issues, written like an advertisement. Not a formal metric of appraisal, but just for scale the company only has 4 google reviews. Not salvageable at this point. A MINOTAUR (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ido Kedar

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

Per the discussion on WP:FTN, there is an inherent issue here. While the claim to notability is of him as an author and autistic advocate, all of what he have from him is through the thoroughly discredited practice of facilitated communication - which basically means that none of this is actually him. While this would not be disqualifying if we had sources to address this, none of the sources do. It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator here. The article is not about/endorsing facilitated communication or any fringe theory. The article is a biographical article and is backed by the sources provided. Also, for what it's worth, the article, as backed by sources, suggests the individual does not use facilitated communication, but rather types on a tablet computer. I don't think there's any violation of WP:FRINGE here. I see no reason not to keep. —siro χ o 01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the article itself is not about facilitated communication, it is remarkable that no source I can find has commented on whether or not facilitated communication is still being used by the person in question. This is especially concerning considering the video evidence that is out there that Ido Kedar does not offer tablet communication independent of those with whom he has had an acknowledged FC/RPM relationship.

We are cautioned to look for WP:FRIND sources whenever questions that relate to WP:FRINGEBLP come up. And, like it or lump it, there is a significant part of this story (even including that the story exists at all) which is being driven by a fringe theory. I would like nothing more than for a third-party WP:FRIND source to appear that would evaluate and state with clarity what the situation is. Do we have a situation here where FC/RPM was used and then Ido Kedar transitioned away (if so, this would be the first documented case of this that I think would have ever been seen)? Or do we have a case where FC/RPM is still going on making a lot of this questionable.

This is a WP:BLP, so we are tied by Wikipedia's rules to follow what reliable sources say about the subject. But given the problems of FC/RPM, it seems to me that we may be in a situation where literally no reliable sources have been written on this person. This includes sources from locations that would otherwise be considered reliable. When it comes for WP:FRINGE claims, we have seen some of the best publishing outlets fall flat on their faces and end up WP:SENSATION instead of reliability. Obviously, that is a huge risk here too.

Getting a source which clearly indicates whether FC/RPM is still being used by Ido Kevar would be great. But I have found none which do so.

jps (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says "Kedar uses a tablet to communicate, on which he types without assistance" and provides 3 sources. The first one, an LAT article, has a video showing him (very briefly) typing on a tablet by himself. That article starts "Ido Kedar sits at the dining room table of his West Hills home. He fidgets in his chair, slouched over an iPad, typing. He hunts down each letter." So when you say "considering the video evidence that is out there that Ido Kedar does not offer tablet communication independent of those with whom he has had an acknowledged FC/RPM relationship," you seem to be implying that the video is misleading and the LAT article author is dishonest. Or did I misunderstand? If I didn't, what leads you to conclude that?

Re: FC, it's certainly disputed, but it's not clear to me that it's "thoroughly discredited" (quoting PARAKANYAA), though some obviously believe it to be. As a counterexample, peer-reviewed reference 10 in the article says:
peer-reviewed studies confirming autistic or disabled authorship of FC messages number over a hundred from the 1990s to the present (Cardinal and Falvey, 2014), and use varied methodologies including text analysis (Bernardi and Tuzzi, 2011), naturally occurring message passing (Biklen et al., 1995; Weiss et al., 1996), intensive video analysis (Emerson et al., 2001), inductive analysis (Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001), and linguistic structural analysis (Niemi and Karna-Lin, 2002). This body of evidence speaks to the need to reassess FC, given that its validity and efficacy are not so unproblematically dismissed (Williams, 2020).
The Author's Contributions section at the end says that one of the article's authors, Timothy Chan, "an FC-user, conceived the Perspective and researched with the support and guidance of WL and MH." Chan is either a masters or doctoral student at Australian Catholic University. If he's using FC, then I don't see how it can be thoroughly discredited. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been verified beyond what the section says? It usually just ends up being that it is true because we say it is true, and no we aren't going to be tested, how dare you even suggest it. The long and short of it is that Chan's facilitator is a masters student at the University. FC is completely discredited and harmful. The videos do not show him typing independently or without a facilitator nearby. Sgerbic (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Has this been verified beyond what the section says?" What is the referent of "this"?

"It usually just ends up being that it is true because we say it is true..." What is the referent of "it"?

"Chan's facilitator is a masters student at the University." No, Chan's facilitator is his mother, and I've now confirmed that he's a doctoral student rather than a masters student. The video I looked at showed Kedar typing independently; perhaps you and I have different meanings for "independently"? You're also ignoring the reporter's description. The video of Chan here shows him typing independently, as does this one. His mother is touching his shoulder/back, but she certainly isn't guiding his letter or word choice. Why does it matter if there's a facilitator touching the person or nearby? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The handlers are still present in that video. They can still prompt. jps (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or did I misunderstand? If I didn't, what leads you to conclude that? The skeptics who have commented at the Clever Hans blogpost noted that the videos include the FC prompters in range. The problem has been that prompting can be very subtle. The only way to verify it is not going on is to test it under controlled settings which, apparently, FC practitioners steadfastly refuse to do.

FC is discredited precisely because it has never been shown to work. And this is not for wont of trying. The technique was subject to multiple attempts to verify it, and each time it has failed. This means that now FC practitioners refuse categorically to allow the technique to be studied in a controlled fashion. Compare parapsychology.

Sure, there are academic backwaters which will accommodate this and any other form of pseudoscience under the sun. No, that does not mean we have verification. WP:FRINGE requires extraordinary sources--not students at obscure Australian universities. jps (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"FC is discredited precisely because it has never been shown to work." The peer-reviewed paper I quoted disagrees with you. Maybe they're wrong, but you should actually show that rather than assume it. "The only way to verify [prompting] is not going on is to test it under controlled settings which, apparently, FC practitioners steadfastly refuse to do." Then the appropriate conclusion is that you don't know whether prompting is or isn't occurring. And while Australian Catholic University isn't a research 1 institution, but it's hardly "obscure" or a "backwater." Why on earth would you choose to characterize it that way? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The peer-review paper actually does not disagree because it admits that FC practitioners as a rule do not allow independent testing of the method. I am fine characterizing the institution as being an irrelevant aside to the major point. FC is a pseudoscientific unvalidated method. jps (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does disagree: "This perspective article presents an analysis of the research arguing for—and against—the use of FC, combined with the lived experience knowledge of autistic adults who utilize FC, to rehabilitate its current standing as discredited and unevidenced" (emphasis added). And I've allowed myself to get distracted from the actual issue in this AfD: does or doesn't Ido Kedar meet GNG. He does. If you want to argue that the RSs used to substantiate his notability actually aren't reliable for the content sourced to them, that discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. If the talk page discussion concludes that they're not RSs and should be removed, then the article can be renominated for deletion in light of that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The paper acknowledges no controlled studies. jps (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: the actual issue in this AfD is whether Ido Kedar meets GNG. Take the discussion of FC to the article's talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is only one facet. An important issue that is yet unresolved is whether this WP:FRINGEBLP can be written according to our guidelines. jps (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think some part of WP:FRINGEBLP indicates that this article should be deleted, please quote it, because I'm not sure what you have in mind. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves If this standard is not met, the article may not be able to exist. jps (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as I already pointed out: If you want to argue that the RSs used to substantiate his notability actually aren't reliable for the content sourced to them, that discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. If the talk page discussion concludes that they're not RSs and should be removed, then the article can be renominated for deletion in light of that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn’t? Why would a notability problem be discussed on the talk page? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But so far, you haven't presented any real argument for his not being notable. Your argument boils down to your claim that "It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE." But his article is not about FC. Look at the criteria for GNG, and ask yourself where it fails, and then specify it here. For example, are you claiming that there is no significant coverage in independent secondary sources? Are you claiming that the sources aren't RSs for the text sourced to them, and if so, can you quote the text in question? Is the article inconsistent with some part of WP:NOT, and if so, what part? Are you claiming that it's inconsistent with WP:FRINGEBLP, and if so, how? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is simple. If there are no reliable sources, then notability is not satisfied. We argue there are no reliable sources. You disagree. What you additionally are trying to do is claim we can't even have the conversation about whether there really are reliable sources. Tough cookies. We're going to have the conversation. jps (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're claiming that there are no reliable sources, but so far, you haven't presented any evidence that any text that's actually in the article (i.e., a quote) is sourced to a source that is not reliable for that specific text. As for 'What you additionally are trying to do is claim we can't even have the conversation about whether there really are reliable sources," please don't make false claims about me, as I've done nothing of the sort, and false claims are counterproductive. I support your having a conversation about it on the talk page. I support your having a conversation about it at RSN. I believe that those are both appropriate venues for such a discussion. But if you nonetheless insist on having it here, then please start presenting the kind of evidence you'll need to present. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he has presented evidence, by showing that the outlets haven't done due diligence regarding the claims of FC and his independence from that, making them unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, he hasn't. He hasn't quoted any text from the article, much less shown that the cited source(s) are not RSs for the quoted text. (From what I can tell, I'm the sole person who has actually quoted text from the article.) You assert that "the outlets haven't done due diligence regarding the claims of FC," but FC is only mentioned in a single sentence in the article. There are three citations for that one sentence, and evidence would mean showing that the sources don't actually support that sentence. But let's say that they don't, and you can't find a source that does. Then you delete the sentence and citations. That leaves the rest of the article and all of the other sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources which uncritically argue that Ido Kedar is communicating are completely suspect. So far, I haven't seen any of the sources in the article deal with this fundamental point. If they don't deal with this fundamental point, it is questionable whether they can be used to source anything at all. This is sticky because when sources fail to do basic fact checking it calls into question everything being written and the entire basis for notability. See WP:SENSATION, for example. jps (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Frontiers in... piece has been impeached. See below. jps (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Frontiers in... is generally considered a somewhat problematic outfit for publication. They have been implicated in pseudoscience publishing scandals in the past. This one looks like another. The testing that would aid in verifying that FC works is straightforward. And yet, FC boosters will not allow such testing to occur. Instead of dealing with that, the article in question falls back on dubious claims that unverified methods such as "text analysis" somehow show that controlled studies aren't needed. jps (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have evidence of Frontiers in Psychology having published pseudoscience then present it. If you have evidence of this particular article containing pseudoscience, present it. Trying to tar the article or the journal by pointing to other journals published by the same publisher is a form of ad hom. I get that you want a certain form of research to occur. However, your desire for that research to be conducted does not imply that potential subjects have to agree to participate. That's not a matter of "boosters." That's a basic tenet of human subjects research. As for "the article in question falls back on dubious claims that unverified methods such as "text analysis" somehow show that controlled studies aren't needed," no, the article didn't do anything of the sort. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This paper is itself pseudoscience. Your arguments amount to WP:PROFRINGE at this point. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Disability, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per coverage significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, NBC Los Angles, CBC, and others. Moral panic about the possibility of the dreaded WP:FRINGE!!! is not a criterion for deletion (good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!??). If there is relevant, reliable, BLP-compliant coverage poo-pooing this man and his works, by all means cite it as well. But until then, there appears to be enough secondary, independent, reliable coverage of the subject to warrant a brief, respectable biographical article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a guy manages to convince some news outlets that he has psychic powers, or that he was an alien, and they cover his psychic powers with limited credulity, and there is no source debunking said psychic powers with respect to the individual, we would be forced to have an article that says in wiki voice that a man can do things that are impossible, because we have no source that says otherwise with respect to this individual. This is why an article that violates WP:FRINGE is sometimes a problem worthy of deletion - if it can be fixed, then yes, if not, no.

I say this in jest but I would honestly bet if I scraped mid twentieth century newspapers enough I could probably find something like that. Even further, this is worse, because every single word and everything about him is potentially suspect because if he uses FC he didn't even say it! This is therefore not an actual article on him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!?? I am amazed that this argument is being made. Our first commitment before anything else should be to present the best information according to the best sources. If we cannot verify even the most basic of facts about a person (such as whether they are communicating what some claim they are communicating or not) because literally every word attributed fails verification as being said by them, then it is highly irresponsible of Wikipedia to WP:ASSERT anything about the person beyond such points as "this person exists". This is a biography which is based almost entirely on works that are not independently verified. To be clear, yes, there is obvious and considerable doubt that the journalists at The LA Times, NBC Los Angeles, and the CBC actually verified that they were communicating with Ido Kedar and not his handlers. This kind of "public interest story" rarely gets the attention necessary even in erstwhile reliable outlets (we see this again and again with fringe-adjacent subjects). How do we write an article on a topic when we cannot even verify the most basic facts about the topic? jps (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An inspiring story, but there is too much doubt about the reliabilty of the sources: WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete If this is someone trained by the founder of the Rapid prompting method Soma Mukhopadhyay and is now an independent communicator, then he is the first one ever and the main stream news should be beating down his door with coverage of this amazing miracle. Since that has not happened we know that this is just another story from the FC community offered up with no proof of independence. We must treat this as we would any other claim of a miracle with no evidence such as someone who is dead communicating with a medium and we are supposed to believe them because they say so. We do not need to have a R/S to disprove mediumship. I would be fine with keeping this article if we were to give the authorship to the person who is facilitating Kedar. As Animalparty states, there is R/S but the authorship is not Kedar. Sgerbic (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff. That does not make him notable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. The sourcing indicates that he is notable, and gives us something to write about him, and that is all we need. What we write doesn't actually have to be "true", it just has to reflect what our sources said about him. Even if his words are not his own, and "someone grabbed his fingers", he would still be notable, because sources have chosen to report - that's core Wikipedia policy (in other words, we verify that reliable sources said something, not that they got it right). If there are documented doubts about his communication, they can go in the article (and if not, not). Elemimele (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we write doesn't actually have to be "true". !!! WP:TRUTHMATTERS. jps (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily passes WP:GNG for a BLP with WP:SIGCOV. As per our policies and guidelines, we simply document all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We don't delete articles because you are unable to find any sources to discredit a topic. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no proof the person as discussed in the article does not actually exist that is, quite different. If there was the same amount of coverage about a medium talking with an alleged person from the afterlife we would have to give the same amount of coverage if the news do? Absurd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't' provided any reliable sources that explicitly state "that none of this is actually him"; and we don't delete articles because "none of the sources do". If you want to challenge any of the sources used in the article based on the argument that they don't say what you want them to say, then please go ahead and do that, otherwise this living person easily passes our criteria for a stand-alone article. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaidnoway The reliable sources say he uses or used facilitated communication, which no one has ever moved on from and is basically a ouija board when it comes to the process and accuracy of stuff coming from him. Unless all these sources are wrong and he never used FC, nothing about this person is actually from him. Again, see medium example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my comment above, I noted a graduate student, Timothy Chan, who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper that's cited in the WP article, where the authors say that Chan uses FC. How do you reconcile that with your claim that it's "basically a ouija board"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this article will enlighten you, Facilitated communication or this one Rapid prompting method? If someone proved that there was scientific integrity to FC then it would be used by all the reputable agencies that work with these individuals. But alas they have position statements against using FC or RPM. Sgerbic (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is also probably bunk. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the way that you reconcile your claim that FC is "basically a ouija board" with the existence of a co-author of a research paper using FC is to call "it" bunk? It's unclear what "it" refers to. For example, are you claiming that the article is bunk? If so, the journal editor and reviewers disagree. Are you alleging that the authors' claim is bunk (i.e., they're lying about it)? If so, what's the basis for your allegation? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the co-author, if any work was done and it is not merely an honorary inclusion, in this case is the facilitator, as words produced through FC actually come from the facilitator. The basis is that FC does not work. It has been proven to not work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you'd say "if any work was done and it is not merely an honorary inclusion," given that the authors said it wasn't an honorary inclusion.

This BBC article (published a few months ago) says that his facilitator is his mother. If everything he types actually comes from his mother, why do you think she chose to put herself in a situation where she has to complete a doctorate (but with the credit going to her son)? If she's the one making the choices, I'd expect that she'd choose something easier than a doctoral program. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because she really, really wants to believe it - as is the case with all the FC cases. People have done much more absurd things. And if you think it isn't discredited well then our main page for it is rather out of balance then, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FactOrOpinion - why are we explaining that FC is a pseudoscience? This is an established fact and this talk page is not the place to discuss it. You can't communicate with the dead and the earth is not a hollow place where tall people live and FC is not science. Sgerbic (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever one thinks of FC, you're right, this AfD discussion isn't about FC, and I'll stop discussing it. This AfD discussion is about Ido Kedar's article. He meets GNG. As Elemimele wrote above, "If there are documented doubts about his communication, they can go in the article (and if not, not)." That means documentation about him specifically, not about FC in general. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are arguing that the sources included in the article right now have not verified that the subject of the article can actually communicate. If there are no sources, there can be no article. jps (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that source X has been presented as a RS for the content sourced to it, but it's actually not reliable for that content, that's something to discuss on the article's talk page. Unless you have consensus that it's not a RS for the content sourced to it, you cannot presume that it's not a RS here. As for your last sentence, your conclusion is an opinion, not a fact; Elemimele already pointed out why it's not true. I recognize that you objected to Elemimele's comment, and you pointed out an essay that disagreed. But an essay is not policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have consensus that it's not a RS for the content sourced to it, you cannot presume that it's not a RS here. We are allowed to discuss the fact that the sources do not deal with the pseudoscientific nature of FC in our evaluation of whether the article should exist. There is no requirement that we discuss things in silos. jps (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page is not a silo. You could also ask for input at the RSN, which also isn't a silo. As WP:RS notes "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" (emphasis added). I suggest that you start by identifying and then quoting article text that you believe is sourced to something that is not a reliable source for the quoted text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have the conversation here whether you want to have it or not. You cannot stop conversations on Wikipedia just because you want to. jps (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I'm not trying to stop the conversation, only asking you to take it to a more appropriate venue. This is the second time that you've made this false claim about me, and you should stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This venue is perfectly fine. jps (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As recently as 2022, Katharine Beals stated that there is no evidence that Kedar is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range.
Excerpt from source – Additionally, the authors (Heyworth, Chan & Lawson) – citing Kedar ([26]), Rubin ([36]), Sequenzia ([40]), Higashida ([22]), and Mukhopadhyay ([31])—repeat the claim, popular with FC proponents, that many facilitated individuals no longer need physical support and, in some cases, have graduated to full independence. There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range. [Beals, Katharine P. (3 April 2022). "Why we should not presume competence and reframe facilitated communication: a critique of Heyworth, Chan & Lawson". Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 16 (2): 66–76. doi:10.1080/17489539.2022.2097872.]

Additional sources:
Beals, Katharine (3 May 2020). "Review of Communication Alternatives in Autism: Perspectives on Typing and Spelling Approaches for the Nonspeaking". Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work. 17 (3): 361–367. doi:10.1080/26408066.2020.1729284.

Travers, Jason C.; Tincani, Matt J.; Lang, Russell (September 2014). "Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 39 (3): 195–202. doi:10.1177/1540796914556778.

Vyse, Stuart; Hemsley, Bronwyn; et al. (2019). "Whose words are these? Statements derived from Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method undermine the credibility of Jaswal & Akhtar's social motivation hypotheses". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 42. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18002236.

Also for consideration
Katharine Beals (author above) is a contributor to the website below, but it is a blog, so the reliability status would fall under WP:BLOGS and whether they (Beals & Boynton) are subject-matter experts, and whether it is DUE for inclusion for making claims about a BLP
How “non-speaking” and those who call themselves “non-speakers” muddy the waters in facilitated communication by Katharine Beals

Clever Han(d)s Skepticism and “Ido in Autismland” by Janyce Boynton, master’s degree in education, recipient of the 2023 James Randi Educational Foundation award for her work in the field of skepticism, to date, she is one of the few facilitators world-wide to publicly acknowledge her role in producing FC messages and speak out against its use, she was featured on Frontline's Prisoners of Silence.

Regardless of what you or I think about Ido Kedar, per our guidelines, in my view, Kedar easily passes WP:GNG for a BLP with WP:SIGCOV, and I don't believe we are giving "credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE", since there are wikilnks in Kedar's article to Soma Mukhopadhyay and Facilitated communication – which clearly states in the lead sentence, it is a scientifically discredited technique. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SPS, even from experts, can never be used in BLPs. We also cannot rely on wikilinks to provide context to fringe content; the context should be with the fringe claims themselves. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well the context issue is an easy fix, for example, where the wikilink is used in the article - In his work Kedar is critical of dismissal of autistic voices and thought, especially of those who use facilitated communication, which is a scientifically discredited technique. It's not like there isn't multiple sources that can provide that context.
I'd also note that per WP:NTEMP - Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" (which is the case here), in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted sentence with the modification you suggest would be SYNTH. However, you can use the journal articles (not the blogs) to add an appropriate statement to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would not be SYNTH, the existing refs go after the comma in the sentence, and then additional refs to support "scientifically discredited technique". The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. Or in the alternative, a new sentence can just be added with the needed context. It's unclear why that context wasn't already in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely synth to juxtapose statements in such a way that implies a conclusion not present in the cited sources. You can't just tack on that disclaimer to sentences about Kedar if the sources about Kedar do not discuss RPM (not FC) being discredited. That's the whole point of this AfD. GNG does not overrule NPOV issues. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Isaidnoway, for this source which satisfies WP:FRIND and further devastatingly impeaches the Frontiers in... source. I note that while the source cites Kedar parenthetically, unfortunately there is not much to go on for the purposes of the Ido Kedar BLP beyond that. jps (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only other source which I think might be usable from your list, @Isaidnoway: was the other published article by Beals which points out, rather alarmingly, that RPM uses predictive text to augment the tablet communication. I added some sections to the article to see if there might be a way to incorporate some of these sources into the article responsibly. jps (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to RPM. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. As essentially all of this biography constitutes an extraordinary claim, we need much better fringe-contextualizing sources in order to present anything in wikivoice. I found some mentions of Kedar's book in Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice, though I don't have access to the full chapter. There are also a few mentions in Review of Communication Alternatives in Autism: Perspectives on Typing and Spelling Approaches for the Nonspeaking by Katharine Beals[77] that appropriately characterizes the facilitation methods he uses as "especially worrying". I don't think these are enough for a biography, but they could support a paragraph in the RPM article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this subject passes WP:GNG and has WP:SIGCOV. His mere presence here is not fringe, but his biographical contents should duly reflect that, per Isaidnoway's discussion above. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless we can find appropriate sources that follow the mainstream consensus and specifically discuss this case for a ground-up non-WP:FRINGE rewrite. Otherwise we have a problem with WP:INUNIVERSE. (Yes, that is about works of fiction. As appears to be most of this article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are videos of him quite clearly communicating independently (e.g. 1, 2), and multiple credible sources backing this up. Wikipedia has a problematic history of erasing the contributions of anybody who has ever used anything resembling FC/RPM. It is absolutely not okay to do this with people who communicate independently, whether or not they have used FC in the past. Studies on FC/RPM have shown that it can be used fraudulently (or with unconscious control) dangerously easily, not that every single instance of anything resembling it is completely fake. Oolong (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those videos do not show him communicating independently. Crucially, his handlers are present when he is producing the communication in exactly the problematic way criticized above. jps (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as a BLP violation to refer to someone's facilitator as a "handler." This is the second time that you've used that word in this discussion. Please stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a BLP violation. jps (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to propose an alternative word to use, I am happy to use it. But I see no problem with the word "handler" to describe those who are prompting Ido Kedar in the videos. jps (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming that they're prompting him. I already pointed out the word "facilitator." Yes, it's a BLP violation: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. That policy applies to all living persons on all WP pages. I already linked to the definition. Kedar is not a "something," and he is not an "animal" (in the sense that distinguishes between humans and animals rather than treating the former as a subset of the latter), nor do the boxing or manager uses apply. So I'm going to ask you again to stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am using "handler" in the sense of boxing, spy, or manager use, for sure. jps (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, you aren't. He isn't a boxer, so you cannot possibly be using it in the boxing sense. He isn't an agent of an intelligence agency, so you cannot possibly be using it in the intelligence agency sense. His facilitators are also not acting as "a manager of a political or public figure or campaign" in any of your sentences, so you're not using it in that sense either. I've already given you an acceptable term to use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say "manager of a public figure" to be appropriate here? I mean, it's basically what they're doing. Handler is a reasonable word in this situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't meet the dictionary definition of a public figure. I already linked to M-W's, and here are a couple of others: "a famous person who is often written about in newspapers and magazines or is often on television or the radio" (Cambridge), "A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny" (American Heritage). He's not often in the news or a focus of intense public interest. Before this AfD, I'd never heard of him. He doesn't meet the legal definition of a public figure either (in defamation law, let me know if you want some relevant caselaw). What definition of "public figure" are you using? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's analagous clearly. You're quibbling at definitions - you claimed that JPS was analogizing him to an animal by calling the person a handler, when we have already established that it is a word used in a variety of situations that in no way mean we are reducing him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to decide what my state of mind is. I told you the sense in which I used the term "handler". Like it or lump it. jps (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you cannot understand that examples given in definitions are not categorical, then you probably shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. When examples like boxers or people under management or spies are offered, it's to show the sense in which the word "handler" is used to refer to someone who handles another person. It's absurdly jejune to propose that the only people that the term handler can be applied to are those in the context of boxing, etc. Competence is required. jps (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're an experienced enough editor to know that you shouldn't be breaching the WP:NPA policy, especially when you've already made false claims about me above. I suggest that you stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 23:00, 17 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 keep‎. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let Books Be Books

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Organizations, Sexuality and gender, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A- stop removing the AfD tag, twice now. B- which of the six RS in the article that talk about this does the nominator feel isn't talking about this subject? Oaktree b (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is silly, the first TWO sources are directly about this subject, in some of the most RS we have for use in Wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the nominator's username and limited history, I'm having trouble assuming good faith. pburka (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be honestly fairly notable, properly and well-sourced. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 05:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone and their brother. Well sourced short article. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Germany–Guyana relations

AfDs for this article:

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

4 of the 5 sources are primary (government websites), the remaing source mentions Guyana in 1 line. All of the interaction seems to be in multilateral not bilateral contexts. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Germany, and South America. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Standard Life Investments completes purchase of Ignis". BBC News. 2014-07-01. Retrieved 2025-01-16.

[c740-1] "Standard Life Investments completes purchase of Ignis". BBC News. 2014-07-01. Retrieved 2025-01-16.

[1]