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 02	January 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Robert Tang (teacher)

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

Does not meet WP:NPERSON. Only sources on him are from the school district he works in and an interview. A before search yields no results. I do not believe this educator should qualify for WP:TEACHER, since according to the award's page, it is alloted to 1,500 teachers, making it not a "highly prestigious academic award", since Canada's population is only 40 million. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Coverage of the award is strictly local; the award is only a $5000 prize. While still a nice amount, not a large award on the level of a Nobel. Outside of the one award won, nothing for notability for this teacher. Oaktree b (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4th millennium (Next Millennium)

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

4th millennium was previously merged into Timeline of the far future, and the title with this weirdly capitalized disambiguator doesn't appear to be a likely redirect. The article itself is a mix of predicted astronomical events (some of them not even in the 4th millennium) and vague societal speculation and commentary, of which none is specifically relevant to the 4th millennium. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this can probably be deleted in favor of Timeline of the far future, a featured list. If the same article had been created in place of the 4th millennium redirect, it would simply have been reverted. Contrary to that page title, however, noone is going to type "4th millennium (Next Millennium)" into the search bar and expect an article or redirect. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Fullerton plane crash

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Just because it was the first accident in 2025, doesn’t mean it’s notable. (Update: It isn’t even [first 2025 crash) Protoeus (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this is a general aviation accident. Those kind of accidents are rarely notable. (see WP:AIRCRASH) ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 23:13, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small plane crashes like this happen almost everyday and, although tragic, it is unnotable and routine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems somewhat notable per the amount of injuries and possible failure onboard the plane, as we saw with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 minor accidents like this may expose major problems, i would hold off from deleting this until a preliminary report is released to level out if this is notable or not. Lolzer3k 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Vovk

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

Similar to other Chernihiv players, I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this player after several searches in both English and Ukrainian. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems as though this player also fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Petrovski

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

Almost identical to Draft:Thomas Petrovski which was declined due to a lack of sources. Creator has a clear COI, since they also created Paul Petrovski, and they appear to have a particular interest in people with this surname. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, North Macedonia, and Australia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promo article, atrociously sourced, COI issues. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you please provide further details regarding it being atrociously sourced’? Tp767 (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Directory listings or other primary sources, don't help show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CycloneYoris - I have added sources in the Reference Tab. Is this not sufficient enough? They are from official sporting organisations. Tp767 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - several sections completely unreferenced and fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Footballer is a semi-pro. Every single reference provided thus far is a database source like Transfermarkt, Sofascore, Flashscore and Tuttocampo with zero prose coverage. I was unable to find any news articles on Thomas Petrovski in a WP:BEFORE search. The article is filled with WP:OR from top to bottom and the creator has failed to respond to requests to disclose WP:UPE and/or WP:COI. Strong delete. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found in Google or Gnews, what's now in the article is only directory listings or primary sources. Non-notable player. Oaktree b (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real defense

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

Seems like a list of terms with no references. A cursory google search reveal no indication of notability. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saber Hassanpour

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iran. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Henderson

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

Almost no information is provided on this actress. For a list of credits, readers can go to IMDb. Henderson had minor roles in a few movies. In one B movie, The Gorbals Story, she received third billing. She might have been the female lead alongside someone not mentioned in the top three, or perhaps the other two billed actors were the true leads. In either case, this article, in its current state, provides data and virtually no context, making it fail NOTDIR #1. Henderson seems to fail NACTOR as well. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles (not lead) in notable productions (The Gorbals Story and The 39 Steps, for example). It is a stub in its current state but stubs are meant to be improved rather than deleted. -Mushy Yank. 09:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Rahmanpur Jamalia Muktab

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

Indian school that fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search failed to find any sigcov. The article seems to be a machine translation of the article on the Assamese Wikipedia,[1] which itself is tagged for references and the need to wikify. John B123 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. John B123 (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sag & Tre

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

Record labels are notoriously difficult; often the case the artists and the music are notable, and sourcing notability for the label is more tricky. In this case, neither the music nor the artists appear notable, yet we have a page for the label. In a WP:BEFORE I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this record label to meet WP:GNG, and that is before going anywhere near WP:NORG. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but deletion is now proposed as Sag & Tre does not appear to meet any WP criteria for a standalone page. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I think the article meets WP:GNG but nowhere near WP:NORG, nor does it need to meet WP:NORG. Resources for the label are scarce. Soybean46 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am the owner of Sag & Tre :) Soybean46 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grow The Fuck Up

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM or enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Vial (band) - fails NALBUM. Should never have been moved back out of draft. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SLUBStick

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

No indication of notability. Could be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals–Rangers rivalry

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

A WP:BEFORE yielded only their multiple series matchups as well as the Tom Wilson fight from 2021. There is also Bleacher Report article that may or not be reliable. No mention of a rivalry nor team series overview. Note that I am the original author of this article, but since there have been several additions to this article, I am proceeding with this route. If not delete, then trim and merge to List of NHL rivalries#New York Rangers vs. Washington Capitals Conyo14 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Phillips

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

BLP of an OnlyFans model whose claim to fame is having sex with 100 men. Coverage is all from within the past week or so and largely consists of deprecated sources and low-quality tabloids. Fails WP:N, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would move it to draft space then and see if she gets more coverage.

I only made this page since I read about her and saw that there was a German article about her but not an English one. Laura240406 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A draft already exists at Draft:Lily Phillips. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay then I'm also for a deletion

(btw the German Wikipedia's quality standards seem to be a lot worse than the English one's) Laura240406 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E violation, utterly non-notable other than this event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see my comment Laura240406 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a draft that covers the main points and uses more reliable sources. Laura240406 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the sources currently used in the draft are in yellow and red at WP:UPSD. I removed the three it highlighted in the article.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eitaa Messenger

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

Reason: the app is never mentioned throughly independent of the other apps outside Iranian state sponsored sites Baratiiman (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to oppose the deletion of the Eitaa Messenger article. Below, I address the claims made in the nomination and demonstrate the article's alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and notability.

---

1. Addressing the Claim that All Websites Mentioning Eitaa are State-Owned

The assertion that every website mentioning Eitaa Messenger is state-owned is an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence. Such a broad statement demands:

Proof for each individual site: The nominator must provide reliable references to show that all websites discussing Eitaa are indeed state-owned.

Reputable third-party verification: Without such evidence, the claim remains speculative and does not justify deletion.

The article itself does not rely exclusively—or even primarily—on Persian or Iranian state-affiliated sources.

Many western even American even American state owned websites have mentioned eitaa specifically, except you want to excuse them to for being Iranina sponsored like for tens or hundreds of sites you did now. Here are a few for instance:

The Open Technology Fund for its security audits (www.opentech.fund/security-safety-audits/iranian-messaging-apps-security-audit).

Academic studies published internationally, such as on PubMed Central (www.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558972).

This diversity of sources underscores the article’s neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards.

---

2.

Before the article was created, Eitaa Messenger already had an entry on Wikidata. This demonstrates the platform’s recognized notability and importance within the digital communication ecosystem. The existence of a Wikidata entry reinforces the need for a detailed and well-referenced Wikipedia page.

---

3.

Widely Used Platform in Iran

Eitaa Messenger is one of the most used instant messaging platforms in Iran, making it a crucial part of the country’s digital infrastructure.

Comparison with Smaller Platforms:Other smaller Iranian platforms, such as Soroush, Bale, Rubika, and iGap, have dedicated Wikipedia pages despite having smaller user bases or less impact. Deleting Eitaa’s article while keeping these others would create an inconsistency and unfair precedent on Wikipedia.

---

4.

The article on Eitaa Messenger provides a balanced perspective, presenting both its features and criticisms.

Neutrality: The article refrains from promoting Eitaa and relies on credible references from diverse sources, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.

If there are specific issues in the article, they should be addressed through constructive edits, not deletion.

---

5.

I think if a user doesn't like an articles content if shouldn't demand the deletion of the whole thing (first without a request and discussion and redirecting to a new self made previewed poorly referenced article (names Iranian applications and after being declined for two times the adding a request for delete) but try to improve it.

---

The Eitaa Messenger article is well-referenced, neutral, and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. The claim that all websites mentioning Eitaa are state-owned is unfounded and requires evidence for each source. Furthermore, the article’s pre-existing Wikidata entry and Eitaa’s status as one of Iran’s most used messaging platforms reinforce its importance.

If the nominator has concerns, they should propose edits to improve the article rather than advocate for its deletion. Removing the page would disregard its significance and undermine Wikipedia’s mission of providing a comprehensive knowledge base.

I strongly urge the community to retain this article and support collaborative efforts to enhance it if needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely 93.71.57.57 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Autumn League

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

I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources. They premiered a music video on HM, but there's no other significant news coverage or reviews or such from that publication. I checked Cross Rhythms as well, as sometimes Google skips that source lately, but there's nothing there at all. Also important to note that the article creator, User:Metalworker14, was recently banned for undisclosed paid editing, and a connection was established between the individual from that account and working for Rottweiler Records, a label the band here in question was signed to. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Also third reference link is dead. Teraplane (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RealFlight

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

Fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find coverage other than from hobbyist blogs. FlightGear is a potential redirect target, as the article says it's a commercial rebranding of that software, but RealFlight is not mentioned at the target. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Aviation, and Software. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only sources that exist in the article are self-published and thus fails WP:GNG. Protoeus (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cognota Inc.

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

Was prematurely moved to mainspace by author instead of letting it be reviewed by AfC. Appears to be more for advertising. Not sure what L&D industry is. Appears to be written not in a formal encyclopedic tone. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 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 speedy delete‎. G5'd The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (patronage service)

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

also nominating Serhii Yuzvik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub. The articles Angels (patronage service) and Serhii Yuzvik have been improperly copied into mainspace by a Bodiadub sockpuppet from Draft:Angels Patronage Service and Draft:Serhii Yuzvyk, respectively. I am using AfD instead of PROD because I fear interference by Bodiadub, but I expect this nom to be uncontroversial. Janhrach (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Ukraine. Janhrach (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPI has been much quicker than I expected, and the articles have been speedied. I therefore withdraw this nom. Janhrach (talk) 21:19, 3 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.

Gameplay of Dragon Quest

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

This is the same scope as Dragon Quest, which already covers the gameplay of the series, including its history and its reception. This takes many of the same sources, and writes a worse article that focuses more on material that violates WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK, since there is nothing here that isn't covered at Dragon Quest. I would consider a redirect, but I don't see material that would be suitable for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The gameplay itself does not seem to have been widely discussed by reliable sources and therefore fails WP:GNG. I do wonder about our similar article Gameplay of Overwatch, whose gameplay has been discussed at length, but apparently only by gaming magazines and similar sources. Anonymous 17:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Quest#Gameplay per Pokelego999 Anonymous 18:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Quest. While I would normally argue delete, deletion removes many viable redirects which are valuable targets. After the recent Gameplay of Pokémon AfD, I had to recreate many redirects that are genuinely useful search targets that got caught in the cross-fire of the article's deletion. Additionally, the redirect helps if anyone is, for some reason, wanting particular information on the Dragon Quest series's gameplay. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Quest#Gameplay - As stated in the nom, this really does appear to be a redundant fork. Pretty much all of the common elements of the series included in this article are already covered in the franchise article. Likewise, the "Reception" and "Legacy" sections are just discussing the reception and legacy of the franchise as a whole, which is also fully described at the main Dragon Quest article. Rorshacma (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melvin Mayo

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

No evidence of notability, no indepth sources and no major roles in significant works. Fram (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Fram (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with Balboa Amusement Producing Company~~: various sources mention him as strongly associated with the company (create a section Associated actors?) Not opposed to Keep (might meet inclusionary criteria of WP:NACTOR and/or WP:DIRECTOR) -Mushy Yank. 23:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

--->Keep. per Somebodyidkfkdt. Thanks!-Mushy Yank. 09:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Saved From the Harem (reviews here, here and here), Jim West, Gambler (reviews here and here), The Inner Chamber (reviews here, here and here) and The Strange Unknown (Reviews here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also passes NDIRECTOR through Prisoners of Conscience (reviews here, here and here), The Wheat and the Chaff (reviews here, here and here) and None So Blind (reviews here and here).

Maritime Executive

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

A non-notable trade publication that fails WP:GNG. All the sourcing in the article is to the publication's own pages, but a WP:BEFORE search shows no qualifying independent WP:SIGCOV of the publication. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Business, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traveen Mathew

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

Non-notable cricketer, who fails WP:GNG. Has only played in T10 cricket, not any FC, List A or T20 competition which can often help increase significant coverage. This article was moved to draftspace and then moved back despite minimal insufficient improvements, which is why this AFD is necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played two First Class matches, 12 List A matches and four T20 matches. He also represented Sri Lanka at the Under-19s Asian Cup. I have added more information and sources including two from The Papare which focus heavily on him. Lookslikely (Talk 18:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Computing

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

Fails WP:NCORP; I'm unable to find more than a passing mention of this defunct retailer. It's mentioned briefly at the two references (first can be found in IA circa 2006), but not at a level passing WP:SIGCOV. In general that appears to be the pattern: a mention that someone worked there, or that someone bought something from there, but not substantial information on the company itself. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and California. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Newspapers had gobs of ads but no real articles. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Louks

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)

All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?

It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.

I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
- Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
- The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
- The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.

Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?

I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.

Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.

Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.

Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.

Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)

Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have noted, her notoriety has surpassed the original incident and therefore does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. On twitter she is frequently mentioned as the de facto expert on the interaction of smell and media. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How has her notoriety surpassed the original incident? Every single article is related to it. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on Twitter a lot does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.

I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).

So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):

1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:

A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)

B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.

2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.

3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:

A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).

B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)

Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a violation of WP:BLP1E. Going viral on Twitter and getting coverage because of it does not make a person notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Sarithiran

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, trivial coverage and passing mentions in media. There are zero sources that provide WP:SIGCOV to this personality. Nxcrypto Message 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Nxcrypto Message 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 92.7_Big_FM#RJ_Talent: listed there (mispelled) but not opposed to Keep as his last 2 roles in notable productions seem significant enough,,thus having him meet the minimum requirements for actors. -Mushy Yank. 02:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Known for his YouTube pranks [2]. Lacking in terms of sourcing. Film roles don’t seem noteworthy, just passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films and stage performances, Passes WP:NACTOR. Also The subject has made unique contributions to a field of entertainment. Sources are Secondary which provide the most objective evidence of notability. Meets WP:SIGCOV. Tiger-in-Action (talk) 06:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE at policies will not help your case. "Also The subject has made unique contributions to a field of entertainment." What? Nxcrypto Message 07:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Keep, but... there is a pending AfC submission at Draft:Raegan Revord. Ultimately, the two versions should be merged; the draft has a lot sourcing given the repeated questions about passing WP:NACTOR. It's a borderline case at the moment, but a bit WP:IAR in this case, as thousands of people a day are looking for an article on this actress who starred in a successful popular mainstream sitcom, and the only star from that show for whom we don't have an article due to it being caught up in WP bureaucracy. The multiple AfC rejections caused the page to be salted, which caused someone to create it at a disambiguated title, and here we are, when we shouldn't be; the procedures have failed us in this case. So, merge the two versions and let's stop failing our users, topic easily passes WP:GNG. 03:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Mdewman6 (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the sources in this article, I don't see it easily passing GNG. People is mostly quotes from her, so is EW. Doesn't make them useless as sources, but not good from the WP:N perspective. WP:BLP-goodness of looper/thetab etc not obvious. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep Apart from qualifying for WP:GNG, she seems to have won an award at Family Film Award[3] and a nomination at Young Artist Award [4] thus may pass WP:ANYBIO, merging with Draft:Raegan Revord will be appreciated because the draft is with much information also if this article is deleted per WP:TOOSOON, draft has no reason to still stand ANU^writes 06:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Advertising, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to not yet having that second significant role, so best covered in the Young Sheldon article. The claim of meeting WP:ANYBIO rests on the Family Film Award, which does not seem to meet the "a well-known and significant award or honor" requirement by at least this basic sniff test: there's no article on it. Argument that other people in the show have articles and thus she should have one is basically a WP:INHERITED one. However, Draft status is a reasonable place for someone on the edge of but not meeting WP:NACTOR -- one significant role puts her halfway there. It allows us to maintain it while waiting for that second role. A draft does not cost us much, and it would be silly to delete all the work that has been done on it. If for some reasons this is kept, it would be better to merge with... or really, largely replace it with... the draft version. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it's tangled. First off, this is the perfect case why we should not religiously apply the rules. Revord is easily too well-known not to have a Wikipedia article, and deleting articles on actors that our readers see on their TVs for years in massively successful shows for the technical reason "that is their only notable credit" is a complete failure to be with the times. It also means popular actors below 18 are arbitrarily barred from having Wikipedia entries, simply because it is much less likely to achieve our threshold before you have worked in the industry for some time. Any rule that prevents editors from adding articles on main cast members of top 10 TV shows needs to go away. Second, this article must have become a personal quest for some Wikipedians to stop at all costs. It should have been accepted long ago, and far too many editing hours has already been wasted by me and others on the futile hope these editors would understand that there can be exceptions to the current NACTOR rule and that Revord easily qualifies as such. Sometimes child actors decide to leave the spotlight, and if that happens with Revord, we should first have the article, and then we can remove it, if it becomes clear that Young Sheldon will be her only significant credit for the forseeable future. That other articles with a similar level of notability (take Aubrey Anderson-Emmons for instance) remain unchallenged is likely only because of the arbitrary capricious nature of a process where a few or even a single editor can make it their personal goal to come up with whatever procedural objection that's needed to stop an article, zero common sense required, while not spending any energy on stopping other articles with more or less claim to fame. That this article weren't accepted years ago remains a clear example of Wikipedia failure, full stop, and this is our chance to rectify a long-standing mistake. CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting non-admin close and relisting as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that there was a DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_3#3_January_2025. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to relist this. The comments above are clearly for the keep. This can be closed immediately. Marbe166 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your position amply clear, both here and at the article's talkpage. DMacks (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well discussed above, feel like this article has enough to make it notable. CDRL102 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I agree with others that the content at Draft:Raegan Revord should be moved to the mainspace article. She is clearly notable as0 a main actress in one of the highest rated TV shows of its time, even if not by the letter of the NACTOR guideline. Frank Anchor 20:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft article was moved in place of the main article in the past day. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person meets the WP:GNG criteria SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nivi, Inc.

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

Appears wholly promotional and does not established WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Products, Internet, Kenya, Nigeria, and India. Skynxnex (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NCORP. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the sources fail WP: GNG Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato Nishinoue

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

Falls short of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only played 2 minutes in Japan's third league, which is very far from notable. Article has been expanded but I don't believe the coverage meets WP:SIGCOV, which I will outline here. Source assessment:

The longest, but I believe it is not secondary. It has wording like ""During my university days, I worked part-time"
Primary source
Primary source
Primary source
Very short, not significant
Literally one sentence, not significant
Don't think this is very significant either, describes the game on an amateur level
Not about him, WP:PASSING
Database
Database
Database Geschichte (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Dubrulle

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

Cited sources are not enough to establish notability, and I can't see anything better. I'd redirect to the company of which he is CEO, but there is no such article TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The personality of note had a professional career in aerospace industry before starting multiple aerospace ventures. The first part: cited a research paper which has one of his works. His business ventures: bios from the internet has this mention on former ventures; current venture: there are multiple stories around VC funding of his venture, awards etc. Scenecontra (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Scenecontra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

--> Since there are enough citations already, I request to keep this article. I will add more links as soon as I find them. Scenecontra (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Spaceflight, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean artists live performances in Indonesia

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

I don't believe this passes WP:NLIST, as none of the sources discuss this topic in a group. However, it is possible that Indonesian or Korean sources exist that could prove me wrong given that my only language is English. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable and undesirable cross-categorization. Wikipedia is not Setlist.fm. I vaguely remember a similar list being deleted. Geschichte (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Music, Indonesia, and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only not a defining and catalogable characteristic (you'd think there were artists from that country performing before 2017), but defined by the company managing each group, which is not something a general reader knows or cares about. Nate • (chatter) 19:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" The list of Korean artists that have performed in Indonesia must be in the dedicated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mynameisaliffathi (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Baysak (Tram İzmir)

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

Not notable. Cremastra (u — c) 15:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Cremastra (u — c) 15:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN. That said, Redirect to Tram İzmir, which could have been done as a WP:BOLD action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Vihar

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

No single reference in support of the article. Gauravs 51 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 European Cricket League

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

Don't need separate season articles for this minor cricket tournament, all of the reasons for merge and redirecting 2023 and 2024 seasons (2023 AFD and 2024 AFD) apply to the 2019 and 2022 seasons as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Spain. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as both do have WP:SIGCOV from a number of international sources for them. They also fulfil WP:GNG therefore should not be deleted. Furthermore the rationales for the other seasons being deleted are not relevant to these two as 2024's ruling was on the grounds of no RS's (which the two here have loads of) and 2023's was on the grounds of a lack of SIGCOV (which both here have several demonstratively) and for being poorly source (see above for why that's not relevant here as both are well sourced). As an aside as well, AFD is the wrong forum to be proposing a merge. That's what WP:PM is for. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathis Touré

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

Non-notable footballer and former child actor. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT with maybe only a single piece of WP:SIGCOV, a blog/commentary piece in a Corsican paper. The rest is routine transfer coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR with only one role that could be described as significant (the coverage of it is all trivial mentions). Please ping me if I missed anything. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Football, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- soft delete The person doesn't appear notable. Agree with nominators notices.
Taksoh17 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Corse-Matin is an established daily newspaper founded in 1944. Are regional newspapers insufficient sources anywhere in the world or only in certain regions? Also, there is only one article that could be described as transfer-related, not multiple as the phrasing might suggest. ash (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's made the French U19 team (sport) and his film role (acting) was as one of two principal characters around which the story is centered in a popular French comedy. While each career individually might not meet the strictest interpretation of WP:NSPORT or WP:NACTOR, his combined achievements demonstrate impact across multiple fields of public life. ash (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kasturi Murali Krishna

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

The article wasn't notable and not passed on the criteria of WP:GNG, and the cite was a IMDB which is not reliable sources. Royiswariii Talk! 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Royiswariii Talk! 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Telangana. Wikishovel (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete No citations, page isn't ok for main Wiki. Taksoh17 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user came back from a year's absence to add badly written replies to 6 AFDs in a row. Geschichte (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet notable per WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG, with no significant coverage found in reliable sources in English (Kasturi Murali Krishna or Kasturi Muralikrishna) or Telugu (కస్తూరి మురళీకృష్ణ), just passing mentions and social media. Wikishovel (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kasturi Murali Krishna is one of the noted contemporary writer in Telugu Language at present. Article on his name is suitable to be placed in english wikipedia. Ofcourse I am searching for reliable sources for references which may took some time. Moreover this article is available in Telugu wikipedia since 2014 and didnot considered for deletion by any administrators. స్వరలాసిక (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be considered there as well if more sources are not found Geschichte (talk) 16:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shipra Dawar

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

This Topic is not meeting WP:GNG. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. This article don't have any mention about the subject. This is paid/sponsored article. This is self published. Looks like WP:COVERT. B-Factor (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and India. B-Factor (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Thank you for taking the time to initiate this discussion. This is my first attempt at publishing an article on Wikipedia, all guidance is appreciated.

Let's take this step by step-

This article don't have any mention about the subject- The link has been updated in the original article to reference IWill GiTA as described by Microsoft.
This is paid/sponsored article.- The article was used to establish Shira's role as the founder of Bharat Bhagya Vidhata Forum. Have added reference where this has been established- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFaTi2CB4Vg. This video is by Indian School of Business's Bharti School of Public Policy.
This is self published- This was used to communicate her higher education. Additional information has been published by Zee Media.

I hope this clarifies all the doubts. Jai Mata Di 2024 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Punjab, Australia, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jai Mata Di 2024 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimír Balát

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

Balát played 114 minutes of professional league before transferring to lower leagues and disappearing. Other than two dead references provided, which are routine announcements, I cannot find enough significant coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG. The closest latter case is Nový čas. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toarn

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

All coverage of the band that I can find is press releases and/or short blurbs. There's no significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Note that this article was created by User:Metalworker14, who is now banned for paid editing, frequently had COIs with the articles they created, and, as was eventually self-disclosed, some of the sources cited here were written by Metalworker14 as their day job. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhvi Madhukar

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

Fails WP:SINGER. While she has received some media coverage, it appears to be largely sensationalistic. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pushpa Sahu

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

Only selected for training camp before AFC Women’s Futsal Asian Cup 2025. I didn’t found any sources which discuss the subject and this player hasn’t won any medal at international level. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTS TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, and Assam. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts Water Technologies

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

OK, lets see what the references here suggest.

Reference 1 is from GlobalData, which would at first glace appear to be a reliable source. That said, it would seem verify that a company of this name simply exists, and does not support its notability as a corporate entity
Reference 2 simply asserts that this company is a subsidiary of Emerson Swan, an article that I can see has never been created. While not in any determinative, this would appear that a notional WP:REDIRECT from subsidiary to parent company would have negligible chance of passing a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Reference 3 is from that respected broadsheet Foster's Daily Democrat. That said, the lack of a byline and the text "Webster Valve, Inc" suggests that it may possibly be paid content rather than journalistic content
reference 4 is a Home Depot link that I am unable to access.
reference 5 is a product page from Lowe's
reference 6 is an assertion on Yahoo Finance that Watts Water Technologies is listed (as "WTS") on the New York Stock Exchange

It would appear to me that this more complex than a simple WP:A7 about a historical manufacturer of plumbing fixtures and a local company in Franklin, New Hampshire. As always, please do let me do know if you disagree, revert without an edit summary, or whatever you chose otherwise. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts is a component of the S&P 400. That alone makes it notable. KMaster888 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a subsidiary. KMaster888 (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on @KMaster888's argument

Taksoh17 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Regalado Deatrick

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

I do not think this woman is notable. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Poetry, Environment, and Michigan. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming that members of county boards of commissioners are not considered inherently notable. Regardless, article is massively promotional and refbombed with all manner of fluff pieces and non-independent sources (e.g. her organization's social media pages). If kept, should be reduced to a stub. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cashfree

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides the usual PR-announcements, sources are mostly churnalistic in nature, fitting the description at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article carries a promotional tone and was created by a WP:SPA. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Most of the sources are press releases and undisclosed sponsored articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article has a lot of mentions because it was raided by the government...along with a bunch of other similar services. While the subject is mentioned in the articles, they do not actually discuss Cashfree, just the raids. I don't see any coverage specifically of "Cashfree." Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of citations Regardless of the topic, it does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV.. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company clearly meets the WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. I understand that there are concerns raised regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which is why I have provided a detailed source assess table below, including proper justification for each source. In this table, I have chosen The Hindu as a primary reliable source because it has covered the company through general news, including substantial negative coverage. If the article has any promotional tone, it can be addressed and rectified accordingly. Regarding the WP:SPA accusation, I kindly request that we focus on discussing this deletion nomination based on its merits rather than making unwarranted assumptions. Such accusations demoralises.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cashfree-payments-to-expand-to-15-18-countries-over-next-2-years/article65491640.ece	Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/post-pa-licence-cashfree-payments-transaction-volumes-have-increased-by-30/article67980015.ece	Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/cashfree-payments-lays-off-employees-across-functions/article66370477.ece	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer.	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-financial-crime-agency-searches-razorpay-paytm-cashfree-2022-09-03/	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer(s).	WP:REUTERS	This is not trivial coverage, as the reporters emphasized its significance by contacting the company, though the company did not reply to their request for comment.	✔ Yes
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4924965	Potentially independent because its a policy paper jointly published by researchers who are, in turn, funded by two government-funded agencies, as mentioned in a reliable column.	Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research	Significant coverage at following page numbers 32, and 35; addresses the topic directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/rbi-asks-razorpay-cashfree-payments-to-pause-on-boarding-new-merchants/article66271668.ece	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer.	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RT3rEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA108&dq=%22Cashfree+Payments%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cashfree%20Payments%22&f=false / https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-4326-5_9	Potentially independent; the company mentioned in a book chapter which an academician writes	Published by a renowned book publisher; Springer Nature	WP:SIGCOV; Coverage found at the following page number 108; addresses the topic. However, please note that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention; it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, as seen in this case. Hence, it is added to Further reading MOS:FURTHER	✔ Yes
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}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an accusation or assumption. You have made very few significant edits outside this topic, which effectively makes you a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (SPA). I encourage you to contribute to other pages as well to avoid appearing as an SPA. More importantly, your source analysis is incorrect. Check my assessment of these sources below. Yuvaank (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When someone begins editing Wikipedia, they usually work on just one page. Instead of doubting them ASPERSION, it’s better to be more understanding. That said, I have reviewed your source assessment and, to some extent, I agree with you. To overcome it, I have added an another source analysis table. Silkroadster (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:Yuvaank
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cashfree-payments-to-expand-to-15-18-countries-over-next-2-years/article65491640.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO	WP:THEHINDU	Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/post-pa-licence-cashfree-payments-transaction-volumes-have-increased-by-30/article67980015.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO	WP:THEHINDU	Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/cashfree-payments-lays-off-employees-across-functions/article66370477.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from an unidentified source	WP:THEHINDU	WP:ROUTINE announcement with a grand total of just 90 words.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-financial-crime-agency-searches-razorpay-paytm-cashfree-2022-09-03/	Primarily based on the Enforcement Directorate's statements	WP:REUTERS	WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.	✘ No
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4924965	Potentially independent	Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research	Potentially passes WP:SIGCOV, I'll let this one slide although the puffery in Page 35 raises some concerns.	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/rbi-asks-razorpay-cashfree-payments-to-pause-on-boarding-new-merchants/article66271668.ece	~ Largely based on direct quotes and paraphrases from unidentified sources	WP:THEHINDU	WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.	✘ No
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RT3rEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA108&dq=%22Cashfree+Payments%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cashfree%20Payments%22&f=false / https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-4326-5_9	Independent material	Written by two seemingly reliable authors and published by Springer Nature	Fails WP:SIGCOV, Page 108 includes two sentences about regulatory action involving this and another company. No in-depth coverage on this company itself.	✘ 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}}.

Keep: Although... I am a deletionist, I support keeping this page because the source analysis table meets the SIRS criteria. But, if the page-creating editor is found to be evading a block or anything like that, it could be easily nominated for deletion under G5. I assume this because the page has an alternate history. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has accused the page creator of being a block evader. My nomination is based solely on the quality of the sources used, and I have provided a detailed rebuttal of the source analysis table above. I was also unaware of the previously unsuccessful attempts to create a page for this company at Cashfree Payments, Cashfree, Draft:Cashfree and Draft:Cashfree Payments. Thanks for pointing this out. Yuvaank (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The creator's source assessment depends largely on The Hindu which has a poor reputation for fact checking[5][6]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why HINDU says its' opinion pieces should be handled according to the appropriate guidelines. I have used clear news reports, following the RSP qualification criteria for The Hindu. No source is perfect; their coverage often has some bias. Sometimes they even apologise and retract. For example, check out the List of The New York Times controversies. Despite these controversies, have we ever banned the NYT from being considered a reliable source? You have a strong editing history, and I was hoping for better arguments from you so I can learn as a new editor. Silkroadster (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The links I cited all referred to news articles not opinion pieces so first part of your comment is a strawman, secondly a source that has a history of no fact checking and ripping off random unverified facts from Wikipedia prior to publishing news can not be trusted, especially when the sources you cited were only reiterating the unverified statements made by the company itself. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns about fact-checking and reliability. I have once again reviewed all the Hindu sources mentioned in my analysis. Apart from the company CEO's quotes, there is significant editorial input from the journalists, which should not be overlooked. My reservation is about dismissing an RSP source entirely due to past issues. To support my perspective, I have already provided the example of The New York Times. Okay, let's agree on this... The Hindu is on the RSP list based on a general consensus. If you have concerns about this source, you can raise them at RSN. My humble request is this... please try not to impose your personal judgment here solely based on your feelings. I can sense that you may be upset, so I kindly ask you to take a moment to calm down. I want to assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RSP entry is not the final say on the reliability of indian sources, as WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to exercise caution when using them. Indian sources should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also, you should stop referring to the RSP entry, as it does not even discuss their business newspaper, which you have cited. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the first point, I agree with the view on NEWSORGINDIA.

For the second point, regarding referring the Hindu RSP entries, please check this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_305#The Hindu. Also, take a look at Tayi Arajakate's comment on Hindu Businessline at this link for more details.

To make things clearer, if we use the CiteHighlighter tool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Novem_Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter. Hindu BusinessLine appears to be acceptable. Silkroadster (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am adding another source analysis table;

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5865944/payment-gateway-global-market-report	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
https://jmflresearch.com/JMnew/JMCRM/analystreports/pdf/%5BJMFL%5D%20India%20Internet_Digital%20Payments_SectorUpdate_06Nov2019.pdf	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Coverage found at page number 50.	✔ Yes
https://www.asdreports.com/market-research-companies-651138/open-banking-global-forecast	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
https://www.giiresearch.com/report/ires1618785-open-banking-market-by-services-banking-capital.html?	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
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}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a COI with the company? Your response didn't address that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. I just gave my response. My response... here focused on the AFD's key points, but I appreciate you asking for clarification. Silkroadster (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you quote the last two sources or provide their relevant scanned pages? These reports cost thousands of dollars and are inaccessible, we can't take your word for it given that you have tried to misrepresent sources before too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I could access it, I certainly would have. Since they are mentioned in the context index and some in the introduction brief, I am accepting them. Regarding the cost of the reports, please refer to the PAYWALL guideline, which clearly states: 'Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries.' Regardless, I apologise if we haven’t been able to see eye to eye on this. Secondly, I want to clarify that I haven’t misrepresented any source—it seems you are strongly asserting that a valid RSP source is invalid based solely on your personal opinion. Let’s call it a day. Silkroadster (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should avoid waving these guidelines at experienced users, we are all aware of them. If you do not have access to sources you should not include them in your source assessment. You did misrepresent the source analysis earlier as Yuvaank's counter analysis showed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I value constructive and guidelines-based discussions and respect everyone’s experience here. But, I think it’s best for me and for this AFD... if I step back from having any conversation with you. I want to re-assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The Mint source is fine, CEO talks about the company and profits. Many items on the raid... Not the best sourcing, but more than what we normally see form Indian sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the sources in this article are from WP:NEWSORGINDIA, so it's difficult to establish notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that multiple independent research firms have produced in-depth reports and analysis on the company (structure, product, market positioning, comparison with other companies, etc) is enough to demonstrate notability as per GNG/WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undoubtedly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The sources are mainly promotional. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful...

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

This biography about a famous person is not notable enough on its own for an article. It's notable enough for a couple sentences on the subject's article at most. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm kind of torn. I have three reviews on the page, so it does pass NBOOK. However biographies are a bit of an odd duck in that it kind of has to satisfy two things: first it has to show notability. Once that's done, assuming the subject has an article, the article then has to show that it's more than just a rehash of the biography page. There are a handful of reviews, but I'm not pulling up that much. I've got the impression that there's likely more but it's not as strong as an impression as I'd like. I'm somewhat leaning towards keeping this, but I'd rather look for more sourcing so I'm going to refrain from making that an official stance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There looks to be a review here, but I can't verify all of it. This is making me lean towards the thought that there's probably more out there. I'd just like to have more critique of the book, as that is going to be what helps this stand out from the main Mariott article. If we can find interviews about the book, even better. I think notability is established, but what I want to prove is that it would be able to stand on its own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a copy of the book Everybody Dance: Chic and the Politics of Disco here on Internet Archive. Both Everybody Dance and Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... were published by Helter Skelter Publishing so the book may not be sufficiently independent to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. "Reviews - Book of the Month 14.08.04". Music Week. 2004-08-14. ProQuest 232200055.
  The review notes: "A rich portrait of the man described by some as the greatest white soul singer of all. From paying his way through the Italia Conte drama school, through his time with The Small Faces - the first group to be banned from Top Of The Pops and who were deported from Australia at gunpoint - to relentlessly touring the States with Humble Pie in the 70s, money problems, latter solo days on the pub circuit and his tragic end in a house fire at 44, All Too Beautiful seeks to restore Marriott's importance in rock 'n' roll with considerable success."
2. O'Reilly, Chris (2004-07-10). "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful By Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier Helter Skelter Publishing, £19.99". Evening Express. Factiva EVEEXP0020040713e07a0001p.
  The review notes: "This is the definitive account of the life of Small Faces and Humble pie frontman Marriott - the original Modfather who penned and sang such hits as All Or Nothing, Itchycoo Park and Lazy Sunday afternoon. ... Beset by drug and alcohol problems, he was making plans for a comeback with Frampton in 1991 when he died in a house fire that destroyed his 16th Century Essex cottage. He was 44 years old.This is a well researched book marred only by poor pictures, all black and white.An extensive list of all Marriott's recordings, solo and for various artists, throws up some interesting gems. For instance, he wrote and sang an award-winning advert for a brand of coffee in the 70s, and played on various Rolling Stones tracks.All in all, a sad tale well told."
3. Clark, Pete (2005-12-05). "Rocking good reads". Evening Standard. ProQuest 329879723. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful (Helter Skelter, Pounds 14.99) is ably constructed by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, but they are unable to dispel the sense that this baby-faced man with an evil tongue was a bit of a sod. Apparently, Marriott had an alter ego called Melvin the bald- headed wrestler, who leapt into being whenever Steve was off his face on coke and drink, and in a mood to be as nasty as possible."
4. Crowley, Lord (2004-07-05). "Still room for ravers..." BBC. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "This week sees the publication of the book All Too Beautiful written by Paolo Hewitt with John Hellier. It's the definitive story of one of London's all time great rock n rollers: Steve Marriott... An exhaustive account of the East End musical maverick, it spans his beginnings as a child prodigy, his memorable work with arch top Mods the Small Faces, and all the way through to his later work with Humble Pie, his subsequent solo career and his untimely death in 1991. ... Which is why it's nice to see this book and the success of various recent compilations that give the man his 'propers'. His proper respect. ... A right riveting read as they say."
5. Wobble, Jah (2004-08-01). "All Too Beautiful by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier: Artful, mercurial - but he wore a lot of people out". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-07-06. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The review notes: "All Too Beautiful answers the question. Written by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, it is nothing if not a labour of love. Hellier ran a Small Faces fanzine for years, and Hewitt's love of all things mod is well documented. However, the book is not just for hardcore fans of Steve Marriott. It provides a down to earth account of the "swinging London" scene of the 1960s, by which time Steve and the Small Faces were ensconced in Pimlico, larging it at their Westmoreland Terrace abode. The shenanigans Marriott encountered in the music business at that time are also well documented."
6. Unreliable source that cannot be used to establish notability:
  1. Connolly, Ray (2012-04-05). "Small Face who fell from grace". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Evening Standard.
    This review is from Ray Connolly, who has written for the Daily Mail, as well as The Sunday Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Observer. But it cannot be established to notability owing to the consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL that deprecated the source. The review notes: "Steve Marriott wasn't the great star that Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier believe him to have been, but he was an accomplished musician with a striking voice. Nor is this a great biography, mainly because the subject had such a one-dimensional life, and is such an unattractive personality. It is, however, one of the best books I've read about the backwaters of rock music."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources given above by Cunard are fine, should bass NBOOK. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to David Ayer and maybe thin this out. Right now this comes across as the films he didn't make are the most important part of his work. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [7], [8], [9] etc.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just sure how much is inaccuracies vs. it just being subjective and ambiguous what you want to consider to be inorganic. The coordination chemistry with the nickel-phosphine complex feels inorganic, even if the reactants are all organic molecules. Do we want to consider organometallic chemistry to be inorganic? I noticed our Template:Branches of chemistry lists organometallic chemistry under inorganic, rather than organic chemistry, but it really is a mixture of both. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011 to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page. The creator suggested it should be reasonably selective, but include all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:
1. Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
2. Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.

Preimage (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is surprising that editors with little or no track record in chemistry editing are voting with such confidence. We're not talking about Taylor Swift or pop culture here, but hard core chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make too many assumptions about people's backgrounds from their editing history. I have a degree in biochemistry, even though I primarily joined to add my photos of Japan. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hard core chemistry? Inorganic chemistry is taught in high school, you don't even get big into the organic until post-secondary levels of schooling. Oaktree b (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are evenly divided here between editors advocating Keep and those supporting Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep base on the title, this can be a useful and informative list so it's satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Though the article is in garbage shape as of now. Someone whose familiar with chemistry should fix it. Deleting this is a bit of an overkill, an alternative to this is draftfying it until someone fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for providing no value beyond Category:Inorganic reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Any substance that doesn't contain carbon would be inorganic... I'm not sure this list serves a purpose. Unsourced, no discussion as to why these are important reactions. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename and improve (this is actually a list of types of reactions). The Category:Inorganic reactions is very incomplete, hence the list does serve a purpose, just as a similar list for organic reactions. Some of the types of reactions in this list can be actually qualified as "organic" (the distinction is not always clear), but I think this does not invalidate the list. My very best wishes (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Otago

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

Fails WP:GNG. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect to MediaWorks_New_Zealand#Radio as subject is not notable on its own merits, but is part of the history of a more notable entity. Espatie (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Smékal

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources mainly refer to his hat trick, which helped his third-league Hlučín eliminate Viktoria Plzeň from the Czech Cup. He played only 8 games at the professional league level, 6 in 2017 and 2 in 2021. FromCzech (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:SIRS. The source from Blesk is an interview. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to his number of games played, we can look at the number of minutes played during those games, which were only 228. Geschichte (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. V. Mani

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

Not notable, entirely unsourced, praising the subject. Another coincidence is that the username of the creator of the article matches the subject's middle name. I thank @Espresso Addict for giving me the go ahead. SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Hot Room

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

Most of the article is just WP:FANCRUFT. A WP:BEFORE search yield no WP:RS source talking about the character. WP:CBR and ScreenRant is not a source to determine reliability per WP:VALNET. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed what I believe was a bunch of the cruft. That link says that ScreenRant is "marginally reliable" so I believe those citations are fine, but I also added some more additional citations from non-CBR and non-ScreenRant sources. How does it read now? Alliterator85 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Phoenix Force per WP:NOPAGE - The Phoenix Force is the primary topic here, and I'm not seeing any sources that would justify having a separate article. It is already mentioned throughout the Phoenix Force article, but its not really explained well there, so a few sentences explaining what it is could probably stand to be merged to the "Fictional Character Biography" section to add some context. Rorshacma (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Balmain

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

Still fails NATH. Jay Cubby 09:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Jay Cubby 09:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as outlining an unusually successful brief cricket career for the period, when complete team innings seldom reached three figures, the article provides a sound basis and incentive for future expansion. It is informative and interesting as far as it goes, and it is as worst harmless. Sammyrice (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage. A 1-match career is notable only in the most exceptional of cases. Geschichte (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the length of career cannot be relied upon to provide an indication of the notability of the career of a sportsperson. This has been discussed a number of times, both in relation to cricket and other sports, and formed at least some of the discussion around the revision to NSPORTS a couple of years ago. A variety of quantifiable limits were proposed at various times and non were deemed to be acceptable. Balmain's notability rests with whether to not he is notable, nothing else.

In this case, there is clearly some notability and some sources exist which tell us things about him. I suspect that there are more – I'm not certain where McCarron has found him to be a soldier from, but that would indicate that other sources can be presumed to exist. Are those sources enough to show notability? Not sure – there are other passing references to him in PapersPast, including some nice little quotes, but the limited amount of time he appears to have spent in New Zealand means that there aren't many. Fwiw, I declined the initial PROD, partly because I wasn't awfully happy that the nomination had been made seriously, partly because I wasn't sure that a search of PapersPast had taken place, and partly because I wanted to work on List of Nelson representative cricketers, which now exists. That provides an obvious ATD, allowing the article to be redirected to there if it's considered not to be notable. Much of the prose content of the article could be the basis for a note applied to Balmain' list entry, rather like the notes added at List of Otago representative cricketers, for example. Certainly redirection would appear to be the worst case outcome. I can see merit in keep; I don't see a reason to delete given the ATD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nelson representative cricketers. I found this article interesting and searched for some time to try and find content to bolster it but alas without success. Purely on a policy basis it probably fails the significant coverage test but I would prefer to follow @Blue Square Thing in their suggestion of redirecting with the prose content added as a note on the target page.

Shrug02 (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Fabelman

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

No SIGCOV of character to justify independent article. Almost all references cover themes of the movie rather than specifically being about the character. No notable content that isn't either already included in the movie's article, or can't be included there if deemed notable enough DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage on the character may come in overtime when critical re-evaluation happens in the future. The fact the character is based on the film's own director (who happens to be one of the world's greatest filmmakers) also helps boost the significance. HM2021 (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Fabelmans Andre🚐 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. The article is too large and detailed to merge its information adequately, and as a semi-bio of the director its notability and sources meet GNG. Fits well into many other pages for film characters, especially given its unique perspective and use in film story-telling. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essential COSTA RICA

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

The references are either primary, or related to Costa Rica only/majorly. An alternative might be to merge/redirect to Costa Rica DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorWhoFan91; I have read WP:PRIMARY and it's pretty similar to the one we have at es.wikipedia, where primary sources are allowed under a series of circunstances, which I think I followed in the redaction of the article. I also read WP:DEL-REASON and don't find the reasons you have claimed to delete the article listed (even though is not a limited-list), specially the one stating that the sources are costarrican-related. Finally, I would object to redirecting to the Costa Rica article because the nation brand is way different than the country themselves. I will try to find additional, no-costarrican sources to complement the article. Thanks for your imput! LuchoCR (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge select content to Tourism in Costa Rica A lot of this is just corporate information when the focus to the general reader should be on tourism rather than minutia about how Panasonic is the country's official Blu-ray player and consultant awards. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The US CIA has mapped most of the world in very detailed older maps you can find online. I found this one [10] from the "Iran, Series 1501, Joint Operations Graphic (Air) 1:250,000" set, map NI 38-4 Sanandaj, Iran. Salavatabad village is nicely detailed. You can see individual "Kuh"s (mountains) marked on the map, though a peak of 8747 elevation just east of the village is not labeled. I don't see a peak marked Salavatabad but i only have looked quickly at this map. And the current text of the article doesn't really match what the photo shows, which is a mountain close to Salavatabad. The text says the range lies west of Sanandaj, but that city is already west of Salavatabad. But maybe this map helps someone figure out the mystery.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me, I'm Yours

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

Not notable- ref 1 and is just plot/sypnosis, and ref 3 is about an actor and how is joining the show, and not about the show. And I wasn't able to find sources for notability with google. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about the current article, but please restore the redirect to Take Me I'm Yours rather than deleting. --Zundark (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy to find coverage just by searching in Japanese, such as [11] [12] [13] Iostn (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese article ja:私をもらって frames it a little better as originally a Korean web novel and webtoon "날 가져요", so it's worth looking around for Korean source material. Here's some coverage which is less than deep but more than trivial: Yonhap News Agency, on it being made into a Japanese TV show, [14]; Korea Herald, similar along with some other webtoons also mentioned, [15]; Chosun Ilbo, on it and other web novels and sexually suggestive content, [16]. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chinese animated series

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

I notice that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lists are frustratingly vague. However, I would like to be bold in suggesting that this article is superfluous. We already have articles on general lists of animated series by year and a handful for animated series by country, and adding a third dimension of language seems unnecessary. Where does it end, is my question. The point of an encyclopedia is not to create exhaustive lists for every imaginable category. Having a common language is a rather trivial attribute that establishes no meaningful connection between these series. Anonymous 07:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Lists, and China. Anonymous 07:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTCRIT and WP:LISTPURP. Clearly pass the informational criterion but the page sure does need cleaning up. This is the same case of pages like List of Philippine animated films. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is a list by language, not national origin. No other such article exists, nor does creating more seem like a worthwhile endeavor. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Therefore, I would argue that this list does not serve an organizational purpose. Anonymous 16:58, 3 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 speedy deleted‎ by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "A3: Article has no meaningful, substantive content". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thumpoly Our Lady Of Immaculate Conception

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

Page contains no meaningful information, no references, etc. Cyrobyte (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Thumpoly where the church is mentioned. Opening this AfD was premature and unnecessary, since the page is largely empty, and there's nothing to discuss about it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 3 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.

Saheb (1981 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)
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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Even as it is, the film meets WP:NFIC (important role played by a notable person and a major part of their career) -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) [added 4 sources, including a paper focusing substantially on the film][reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 13:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 13:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do anything sir, there is not enough source which I can provide. But I know everything about the film, sir. If also you need any reliable source, you can see this [1]. You can believe me. Ayaasho (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulae (video game)

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. French kickstarted MMO that seems to have been in open alpha for some time with no real routine or review coverage. It looks like there is some broadcast French interviews with the developers which are WP:PRIMARY sources and not very helpful for notability. An English WP:BEFORE found nothing, but accept some French WP:NONENG coverage might be out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are mostly interviews. I only found a local investment source online from Matot Braine. Delete IgelRM (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. Maybe just a WP:TOOSOON, and it could be notable when it actually comes out. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jhankar

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

Fails WP:NFILM. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)
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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sujit Guha: notable cast, verifiable; opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wen Yong Yang

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

Lack of significant coverage. Has received passing mentions in articles about athletes he has trained, but notability is not inherited. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, China, and Texas. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, disputed PROD, SIGCOV is met by new sources including these articles in Asian American Today: [17][18]. The main focus of this coverage is the coach, not his athletes. Subject was the Chinese national coach in the 1980s and has coached Olympians and world record holders – the new sources aren't perfect but I think there's got to be more in the Chinese newspaper archives if someone has access to search those. I revised the article to use less peacock terms. --Habst (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Habst (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kadayif

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

The given reference does not say that this is a pastry dough, and I do not see how the dough itself could be notable. GTrang (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page (or Qataef) IMHO should become a disambiguation, as there are gazillions of spelling and recipe variations, see the Talk:Kadayif. That said, preserve the talk page in any outcome, as it contains collective wisdom. Викидим (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I have no idea why the nominator ignored the discussions and the various scholarly sources that have been cited there. If anything, it's other the articles that should be merged into this one (see discussion). M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is all currently under discussion on the article's talk page, and, given how long-time an editor the nominator is, I'm surprised that the nomination gives the impression of a lack of WP:BEFORE. A topic's notability isn't determined solely by the references in the article but by whether suitable coverages exists anywhere. Nor is the nominator's apparent prejudice regarding the possibility that doughs could be notable sufficient grounds for deletion. In regard to that: Chinese flaky pastry, choux pastry, filo, puff pastry, even graham cracker crust are doughs with articles and are among those included in Category:Doughs. Which I guess this article should also be. Largoplazo (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Middle East. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge with Kadayif (pastry). Per the talk discussion, these pages should be consolidated in some way and the sources used here certainly do not justify this one-sentence article to be separate from the others. Reywas92^Talk 15:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That will be like merging Filo pastry into Baklava. As for the "one-sentence", the only reason it hasn't been expanded yet is because we're still discussing the possible alternatives. M.Bitton (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - along the lines of the !votes above, there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page about several different articles about related/similar dishes. It's far from clear what will be merged and what will be kept separate, although most likely all of the pages in discussion will continue to exist at least as redirects or disambiguation pages. This AfD shortcircuits that discussion (which also affects other pages) and does not help reach a resolution to the problem of the various similarly-named dishes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkishan Suthar

AfDs for this article:

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

mostly source are seem unreliable source to me, and most of the references are obtained from blog websites and the article not meet to WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NFILMMAKER. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College, Ajmer

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

This article's subject does not appear to meet notability standards. The article contains no references except for a dead link from the school's website and I can not find and reliable sources mentioning it on the internet. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goldcross Cycles

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

Stores appears closed in 2013: https://www.rotorburn.com/forums/index.php?threads/goldcross-closing-down.263422/ . Very scant article with few details. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Internet radio station; just two sources; TV station in Albany should be primary topic. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Education, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first AFD. College radio station that was on the air for decades; while the article could certainly use some work, the topic is notable. 162 etc. (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Nga Court

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

No indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found several sources with SIGCOV on the housing estate itself from Oriental Daily News[19][20][21], Hong Kong Economic Times[22], Apple Daily[23], and Hong Kong Commercial Daily[24]. Enough for GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A City Dressed in Dynamite

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

Non-notable album; shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alan S. Kornacki

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

BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Ciocan

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

BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very low-cited field. May pass WP:Prof#C8 with a rather recent journal. The nominator has been on a deletion spree today. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #8. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the case for WP:PROF#C8 as founding co-editor-in-chief of a notable journal is clearest, but he also has a weak case for WP:AUTHOR through multiple published book reviews [25] [26] [27]. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KWBT (FM)

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

Radio station article showing no significance or notability of the subject. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets the GNG per this and this, just to name a few. Many, many hits also at the Waco Tribune's website for the KWBT calls and the previous KBCT calls. schetm (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added three new articles in Waco paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the added sources it easily passes GNG. Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCPB-FM

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

Non-notable radio station. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect to KMUN: it is mentioned there, and the redirect was present for 17 years before being overwritten by the type of substandard stub article that I thought the 2021 RfC that corrected the inclusion standards in this topic area was supposed to eventually eradicate. The edit summary suggests there may be more to say about KCPB-FM than is currently mentioned at KMUN (and that article has more material about KCPB than its own stub!), but until and unless such material is added (or at least sources presented) a redirect as an alternative to deletion is all we need. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this was split out, Wcquidditch, was as part of tackling a group of at one point 85 articles that were trying to do too much in one infobox. (To be more precise, they contained information on multiple technical facilities in such a way that they spit out a CS1 error URL. This is now why {{Infobox radio station dual}} exists.) At the time, I was eyeing an expansion of KMUN, which looked startlingly flimsy and for which I could turn up a lot of sourcing. (This exercise directly resulted in a 5x of KMUN and an overhaul of Texas Public Radio) I would not object to merging back in with a second infobox for KCPB-FM, particularly because this is very much a secondary service to KMUN. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Software distro

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

Abandoned article showing no significance. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect to wikt:distro#Noun. Article was split from Software distribution last month (December 2024). While the topic is likely notable, the current version of the article has no references supporting verifiability or notability. A WP:BEFORE search does not appear to have been conducted prior to AfD nomination; searching for "software distro" overwhelmingly returns articles on Linux distributions, and this subtopic is sufficiently distinct that redirecting or merging here does not seem reasonable. Instead, I propose the article falls within the scope of WP:POINTWIKT, which states that pages which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment can be soft-redirected to Wiktionary using Template:Wiktionary redirect. Preimage (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The non-trivial information is contained in the article does not seem to be WP:Verifiable. Викидим (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bus routes in Brooklyn#B1: Restore redirect for now, for consistency with other NYC bus route articles that do not have their own articles. I didn't find much significant coverage of this bus route, though I might just be looking in the wrong place. This bus is descended from a streetcar line that is notable; however, that route, 86th Street Line (Brooklyn), already has its own article. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Redirect, but the "Service Operations and Notes" in the articles table would be a good place for a link to the aforementioned streetcar line from which it was descended, per WP:WIKI case 2. The same may be true for the other bus route articles in this set. Espatie (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B6 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present. Викидим (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B12 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B11 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, B7, and B8. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B9 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, B7, and B8. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B8 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, and B7. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B7 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, and B4. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B4 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFD for B2 and B3. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B3 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFD for B2. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B2 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Become the Other

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

Studio album which does not make the case for notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not make the case for notability? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielTheMusicMaster Is this a vote? If so, please update your comment with a vote like Delete, Weak delete, Neutral, Weak keep, or Keep. If it is not, please add Comment or {{Comment}} which produces the following:

Comment:

Hope this makes sense! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor's Too Far Away

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

Non-notable studio album; does not make the case for inclusion with listed sources; could be merged in band's page in part. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not make sense? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typed a little fast there. What I meant to say was: Why does it not make the case? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

AfDs for this article:

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

Super 500 tournament appears to be the only thing that has changed since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28 endorsed my closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyu Takahashi. While sources can be found, it does not appear that sufficient have been found for this to be in mainspace and Takahashi lost in the first round which does not meet N:SPORT either. Bringing this here for discussion and further handling if needed. NB: this was created by a new editor, and Pppery performed the requisite history merge to address the copy paste move. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My Opinion = Keep the article

Reason = For the NSPORT criteria. The final sentence sounds like this - "For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion." Miyu Takahashi is a contemporary person and she is young and still going on tournament which her last tournament is Kumamoto Masters S500 in November 2024 (last month) where she lost to someone as contemporary and as notable as Jia Yi Fan and Zhang Shuxian.^[1]. Plus, She just recently won Vietnam Open and a runner up in Indonesia Masters (both are S100) - fulfilling NBAD criteria. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those tournaments were addressed in the prior discussion. You're making an excellent case for draft space where time for sourcing can happen, but it hasn't been found since October. Star Mississippi 13:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all citations I have found are stats pages and mentions, nothing significant. At best they mention that she has won some tournaments, but no details on her life and career. Shinadamina (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the winner of 2024 Vietnam Open and runner-up in 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Mizuki Otake have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. Note that her partner Otake's page was nominated for deletion with the result being no consensus. I've also added some additional sources and note there is more coverage in Japanese. It would be nice if nominators of Japanese articles showed evidence of doing a WP:BEFORE search that included native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "MIYU Takahashi". BWF Badminton. Retrieved 28 December 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. I guess re-draftifying is also a possibility in addition to Keep and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Baby!

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, even with the primary sources shown, simply listing IMDB and Disney deprives this article's notability TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the most recent IP to contest the redirect created by the last nomination at least partially pointed out, all that has changed since that nomination is that the subject is no longer included in the list of programs broadcast by Disney Jr., and hasn't been since 2022. That, to me, indicates that retaining this in any capacity is no longer warranted (unless another redirect target surfaces). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Disney, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dom har glömt

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

The article fails WP:NSONG with no chart information, and it fails WP:GNG with no significant descriptions of the song in the literature. The supplied citations are useless: four of the five are about other things, and the fifth is a Discogs.com link that merely proves the existence of the single. Discogs cannot be cited per WP:ALBUMAVOID, and it certainly does not establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin De Almeida

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

Non-notable YouTuber. The only source is their channel, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Port Hills Geotechnical Group

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

Nifty group but I don't see any evidence of it passing WP:NORG. The scholarly papers that are cited here are all authored by people who were part of the group or whose employers were members of the group and thus are not independent. In my WP:BEFORE search I didn't find any other independent, reliable source WP:SIGCOV to pass the appropriate guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do remember reading about them in The Press, but that content is no longer online. Maybe someone might want to have a poke around ProQuest, which can be accessed via the Wikipedia Library. Schwede 66 21:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MicroStrategy hack incident of 2024

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

Non-notable 'hack' event that fails WP:GNG with no lasting effect or widespread impact. YouTuber himself currently has open AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Brea). Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability. Non-notable, unremarkable, unimportant event. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These 'hacks' (or for most, disregarding the longtime advice not to click on attachments in email ever) have become WP:MILL for YouTubers to the point it occurs daily, and nothing about this certain incident is unique at all. Nate • (chatter) 16:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

This restaurant is not notable beyond is local environment. It is not a landmark; it has no historic significance. It is unheard of beyond the local area. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this is definitely not notable enough for its own article. Not even known beyond its local area, the article was probably created by someone who visited it frequently. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage and this article should be expanded (and moved to The Oasis on Lake Travis), not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the sources identified in the previous AfD that resulted in a withdrawn nomination. One can disagree with the application of WP:NCORP to restaurants (I tend to think it results in far too many WP:ROTM local joints being declared notable), but these sources clear NCORP as we understand it today. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at this one in particular but I was under the impression most ROTM local joints wouldn't get coverage satisfying WP:AUD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you a few examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beppi's restaurant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ping (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (restaurant) (2nd nomination). (I am not offering these as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I would generally disagreed with the "keep" decisions, but treating restaurant reviews as WP:SIGCOV is going to result in restaurants being held to a different standard than businesses that don't generate reviews. The bias is particularly strong for WP:MILL restaurants in markets whose local papers that review restaurants have national audiences (New York, Washington, Los Angeles, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Future participants are encouraged to review the sources listed at the 1st AFD and consider whether they should be added to the current article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

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

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep these are good points. It would be a diservice to Wikipedia if well-known critics were expunged Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this way, that's a great discussion topic for WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not for a discussion where we can't change policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike your second !vote; editors are only allowed one !vote in an AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the entire point of the WP:BEFORE search (which I did) was to find qualifying sources, and I didn't find them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent [sources]" - isn't this exactly what we should expect though? Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities

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

Has been tagged with being un-notable for seven years, without improvement. I could not find independent or secondary sources. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Malaysia. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Brea

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

Non-notable YouTuber. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none online. Large parts of the article are unreferenced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No meaningful media coverage. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A company whose literal existence is filming press releases for a certain field and outside the investment world, has little to no notability by design. Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha's Law

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

There is no indication that a "Samantha's Law" was ever passed in Alberta. There is a provincial "Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act" passed in 2003, but that seems not to be the topic of this article. Multiple editors, including myself, have been unable to find substantial coverage of a "Samantha's Law" or determine a connection to actually existing legislation. The article has been tagged for notability since 2015. Jfire (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have had a look through the history of this article, which helps clarify a bit. Unfortunately a few years ago the article was edited to remove the reference to the legislation, per this diff. The changes were to the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, but I haven't been able to substantiate the change or when the law was passed (best guess 2011).
There was a reference to the Alberta Hansard at one point, "LADDAR_files_docs_hansards_han_legislature_28_session_2_20140310_1330_01_han.pdf · version 1". Here is the Hansard entry which appears to match the now-deleted reference. That's a member on the floor introducing Samantha's mother and using the words "Samantha's Law". Oblivy (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it appears that was Raj Sherman speaking. Still, it appears to me that "Samantha's Law" is likely a term invented by Samantha's family members and other advocates and not the official or common title of any legislation. The article is certainly primarily their work and I don't think salvageable in its current form due to issues with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:N. I suggest we delete Samantha's Law and replace it with Draft:Death of Samantha Martin, which I've drafted from scratch in a manner more compliant with Wikipedia policies. Jfire (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Selepen

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest placement is a silver medal at the Lithuanian national championships Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Lithuania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of American films of 2028

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

This seems way WP:TOOSOON to be useful for the foreseeable future to be draftified. Only one item is even titled. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; can be re-created when we have more than two press-release-parroting sources. (And I will never understand why some editors have to be the first to create an article about a subject for which literally nothing is known yet).WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lobb

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Kline • talk • contribs 01:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

AfDs for this article:

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

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Russia, and New Zealand. Kline • talk • contribs 01:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG; I am unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. There is this with three or four sentences of independent coverage, as well as this blog post and trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child of God (album) as an alternative to deletion. Per nom, does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:SIGCOV - but that doesn't stop this particular author from creating articles that fail to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Child of God (album): agree with Baston's reasoning but would merge. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus against status quo, but delete, redirect, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shicorreus Jones

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

A before search shows nothing that this article pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 00:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijith Kurungodan

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Dilworth

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sofie Madsen

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

Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:

So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. Silver seren^C 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. Silver seren^C 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. Silver seren^C 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be an option if she was borderline notable or the article was a hit job, but neither case applies here. The notability seems pretty clear, and the article isn't negative either. If an article about a notable subject is deleted, someone else will eventually come along and write another article. Improvement is really the best past forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "MIYU Takahashi". BWF Badminton. Retrieved 28 December 2024.

[1]