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

< February 07	February 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Éva Bisséni

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

She doesn't pass notability guidelines in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, because her medal was at minor event. (Ju-Jitsu International Federation) As for her Judo accomplishments, I am not convinced she is meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, she didn't make it to the olympics. If anyone finds better sources, I am willing to change reconsider. Citation issues since 2013.. My search didn't establish any WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Heartland F.C. season

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

This article provides no useful information and there is no indication of sigcov. Also seems to miss WP:NSEASONS and WP:NEVENT. RachelTensions (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Nigeria. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 23:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – And delete 2023-24 Heartland F.C. season. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 100% notable topic if properly developed, but the current article is basically just an infobox and there's only one source. However it's not sticking around in draftspace - keeps getting repeatedly moved back - even though draftification should be the best option here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per nominator, If more useful information cannot be added here then it should be be added to Heartland F.C. page. Information on the page is not enough to have its own page. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Otherwise merge into the Heartland F.C. page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton crew

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

WP:DICDEF: If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted. Paradoctor (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Skeleton Crew, a robust dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't I think of that? Paradoctor (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

House of Milan

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bondage_pornography#Resurgence_of_bondage_magazines: covered there; add that source: https://chicagoreader.com/film/movie-feature/fetish-media-house-of-milan/. A lot of NSFW results make it hard to check but GBooks has quite a few hits. -Mushy Yank. 22:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra P. Davis

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

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county commissioners are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant volume and depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work to establish a reason why they should be seen as substantially more notable than the norm for that level of significance -- but this is referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. stuff self-published by the county council or community organizations she was directly affiliated with), and what there is for reliable source coverage is just the purely run of the mill stuff (local election coverage, etc.) that every county councillor in every county could always show, not demonstrating any reason why she would qualify as a special case of greater notability than the norm.
Simply existing as a county commissioner is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Also clear conflict of interest, as the creator's username had "Apdavis" in it — and the page was then moved from draft into mainspace by a WP:SPA editor with a different username but no edit history on any other topic but Alexandra Davis, without the proper WP:AFC review that was required because of the creator's COI. But as always, even people who do properly meet our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to either create their own articles themselves or pay a staffer to do it for them. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both Politicians and judges criteria. As it says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability.Both (xtools) of the major editors have COI and have only edited this page. As Bearcat said, The sources do not prove she is notable. Most just say she was elected or are primary sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:02, 9 February 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 redirect‎ to Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otumfuo Educational Fund

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

Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Almost all the sources are either primary or press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the sources, and in my opinion, they are OK. However, if it were up to me, I would not call the article "Otumfuo Educational Fund" but rather "Otumfuo Foundation" which is actually the umbrella organization for funding educational and other projects. The "Otumfuo Foundation"/"Otumfuo Education Fund" has actually been in existence for 25 years so it is not what one would call a "fly by night operation". Will do a bit more work on older sources - if that is the issue presently under discussion. AbrewaAccraLady (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Utterly fails WP:ORGCRIT and nothing to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - it's already discussed in the ruler's article, and it's not really independently notable. Bearian (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. User:Bearian what target article are you suggesting here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I'm talking about Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu II as the target article. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bearian. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 February 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.

Classic Response

AfDs for this article:

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

I meant to PROD it, but apparently it was nominated for deletion in 2005. Regardless, the only source that confirms this event existed at all was made by a partner organization. I couldn't find any other sources, not even a PR release, documenting it, so it should be deleted for not following the notability guidelines. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than some stuff from Getty Images that show this wasn't a hoax, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Has already been brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maffian

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

This particular extended play (EP) fails WP:NALBUM and is not notable. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. The article's critical reception section is misleading to say the least. The OkayAfrica and P.M. News sources cited in the article are not reviews. I redirected the article to its parent article per criterion 6 of NALBUM, but User:MakeOverNow reverted my edit. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you think that Maffian didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but the mistake was made by the editor who published this article that didn't provide enough notability. The EP charted on US & UK Apple Music Album chart at #57 & #82 and peaked at number 2 on Nigeria Apple Music Album Top 100 and number 3 at TurnTable Top 100 Albums. [1][2]. Remember Boy Spyce (EP), or Soundman Vol. 2 didn't provide any chart or review to meet WP:NALBUM. MakeOverNow (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music Charts are considered WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts and cannot be used to establish notability. Although Turntable is a reliable chart, simply having an EP chart doesn't justify a separate article. The fact of the matter is that Maffian was not discussed in reliable sources or critically reviewed. I am not sure why you're comparing Maffian with those two other projects. For your info, both Soundman Vol.2 and Boy Spyce were critically reviewed. Show me multiple reliable sources that reviewed the EP and I will change my vote. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario de Miranda (bridge engineer)

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

No sources provided to link this name to any of the supposed achievements. Searches reveal a number of simimilarly named people but none who are bridge engineers. The original article was draftified some time ago and has been moved to mainpspace by its creator without providing any sources. A web site of his own company asserts that he is a Professor at the University of Venice but that is a self penned sources. It is likely that ths individual is notable as a Professor but this is not that article and cannot be extracted from the current version per WP:TNT. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My larger issue here is COI. Author worked extensively on Italian Wikipedia's article on it and is almost entirely written by them. Their COI is also declared on the itwiki's talk page (and hasn't been declared here).

This article also needs significant cleanup if it intends to remain here, but that can obviously be fixed if this article is able to pass GNG. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Chew, I made the COI statement on the talk page and I modified the page by lightening the list of publications and inserting a reference for verification on each point. Everything written in the article is true and verifiable. The person who is the subject of the article is, in my opinion, encyclopedic and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Fedem (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external sources. In particular the international database of structures and several cards of this database. I have formatted according to the guidelines of English Wikipedia. I ask if the changes are sufficient to remove the deletion noticeFedem (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG or NPROF. The page is a mess and will need TNT but that is besides the point of notability, which is not established with the sources or with the achievements and memberships listed. JoelleJay (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here rises to automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-worthy sources, and we don't have them. An individual who was primarily responsible for designing the Great Belt Bridge, say (the first example listed) would certainly be notable, but it was designed by a consortium of three Scandinavian firms, and constructed by more consortia. The linked reference lists his firm as construction engineers for one span of the bridge but even setting aside the distinction between him and his firm that is not the sort of in-depth coverage that counts towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Eppstein, what you say is not true. Mario de Miranda designed the construction of the suspension deck of the Great Belt Bridge during its construction period from 1995 to 1997. Not the design of the bridge but of the hundreds of construction phases from the construction of the cables to the last segment of the suspension deck. This is documented in many publications that are in the references. He also designed several dozen long-span bridges in various countries around the world. Everything written in the article is true and documented. I think that the person who is the subject of the article is certainly notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Fedem (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Fedem (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a defined and significant trajectory. AgusTates (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful. Arguments like "has a defined and significant trajectory" are not helpful. To editors unfamiliar with AFD, this is not a "vote" count and it's valued for you to present policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi-ud-Din Islamic Medical College

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

There are a few mentions like [3], [4] ~~but this is enough in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)~~ it lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Quick search and and got quite good references [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . And here are some urdu news papers references [12] [13] [14] [15] Behappyyar (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions and routine news reports are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion. I found these references right for the vote to Keep. Another thing I have seen that it is the first medical college either in Public or Private sector of Azad Kashmir. Some how that's also makes it notable. [16] [17] [18] Behappyyar (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you have shared primary references. Please provide secondary sources to prove the notability. Gheus (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thinks these five to seven references are enough to establish notability. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

There are more references but they may fall into primary categories, but we can use them in the article.

By the way, I voted to keep on the base of these references. Now let's wait for more votes. Whatever decision is made will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of companies-related deletion discussions. Gheus (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful of sources in the article and here in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional site that doesn't work. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I suggest we merge with the Norwich article. Eopsid (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason why this (and all the others) can't be redirected to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think this could be merged into the Ipswich article Eopsid (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan de Leeuw

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine transfer announcement as well as this paywalled article. Even if the latter was SIGCOV (I'd appreciate if anyone could access it), we would need more coverage to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Wali Gali Mein

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

Sources are all unreliable. Most are un-bylined churnalism and the few that do have bylines are unreliable (ex., Fuchia Magazine). Attempted redirect until the show is released and there are some bylined reviews but redirect was challenged by creator so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article for Dil Wali Gali Mein have to be kept as it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for television series. The show has garnered significant attention from multiple reliable media outlets, including Samaa TV, PINKVILLA a Indian entertainment magazine, The Express Tribune a Pakistani leading and major news network, Dunya News, Daily Times (Pakistan), Fuchsia Magazine, a Pakistani entertainment magazine, Minute Mirror, Aaj News, Jang (newspaper), which have covered the television series and highlighted its potential in the context of Ramadan television programming. Furthermore, the involvement of well-known professionals, such as director Kashif Nisar, producer Momina Duraid, and popular actors Sajal Aly, a prominent Pakistani actress who worked on domestic and International level and Hamza Sohail also, adds to the series' notability. Ramadan dramas have a long-standing cultural tradition in Pakistan, and Dil Wali Gali Mein is positioned to be part of this tradition. Given the expected wide reach during Ramadan, the show has the potential to contribute to cultural discourse, making it a noteworthy subject for documentation. Given the media coverage, industry involvement, and the release in the Ramadan month as Ramadan Programming, the article qualifies for retention based on Wikipedia's criteria for notability in the entertainment sector. The article has needs to be kept. Thanks PB987 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted when this was redirected and in the deletion rationale, sources are churnalism and unbylined. I counted a total of four bylined references out of the present WP:REFBOMB, one of which is unreliable and the others are just announcements and likely churnalism based on HUM TV's promotion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: currently fails WP:SIGCOV, draftify for now. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Vestrian24Bio Thank you for your suggestion regarding the article "Dil Wali Gali", but I believe it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and should remain in mainspace rather than being moved to Draft. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which fulfills Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). If multiple sources discuss the subject in depth, it qualifies to stay in the main encyclopedia rather than being sent to Draft. The article is supported by reputable media sources, newspapers, or journals, demonstrating its wider recognition. If any improvements are needed, they can be made directly within mainspace rather than requiring a move. Furthermore, similar topics already exist in Wikipedia’s mainspace, which establishes a precedent for keeping this article as well. Since the article is neutral, well-developed, and not promotional, there is no strong reason for it to be moved. Any concerns about citations or formatting can be addressed through improvements instead of removal from mainspace. Per Wikipedia’s policies (WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N), this article has demonstrated sufficient notability and does not require incubation in Draft space. Instead of moving it, any necessary improvements should be made within mainspace. I look forward to further discussion on this matter. PB987 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are bylined that constitute significant coverage? At this point, your argument is a fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sırrı Yırcalı Anatolian High School

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

There is only one good source in the Turkish article https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ege/turkiye-birincisi-bahce-10794778 and nothing in this article to explain how the school is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, There is a very detailed article in the [26] source. This is [27] rebuilding article. It is first Anatolian High School in city. May be this sources can help. İmmortalance (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suporn Watanyusakul

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Sources are unreliable. one source not in the article (unsure of reliability) says his clinic is renowned. Not convinced that makes him notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Thailand. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is mentioned in this Thai journal article[28], master's thesis[29], and an article on the Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Thailand's website[30] as a pioneer of sex-reassignment surgery in Thailand, though none of the mentions are particularly in depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rinus Vreugdenhil

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

Insufficiant news references, fails WP:NMusician. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of coverage for this individual; I can't find any. Article only has primary or database sourcing. With no Dutch article to compare too, I can't find sourcing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to nominate this myself, I see no significant coverage to establish notability. Ligaturama (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graded English Medium School

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

A quick Google search and no reliable source is found. Failed WP:NSCHOOL. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing, there are only two, entirely to the primary Nomis/ONS. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I dont think there are any sources outside of the census and no obvious merge target. The 1966 book conurbations of Great Britain has this to say about the area "In North Wales the coast towns from Prestatyn through Rhyl [then it mentions a load of other towns] are virtually fused one into another but they are excluded here as the process of conurban linkage is hardly complete" Eopsid (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely to the primary Nomis/ONS data. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think theres more sources out there which havent been added to this article yet. The 1966 book "Conurbations of Great Britain" on page 244 says "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham have now fused into a single small conurbation. Eopsid (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley/Dearne Valley built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing, only two, to the primary Nomis/ONS, and a scrape site that doesn't appear to mention the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely to Nomis/ONS, with there only being one. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one passing mention in Google scholar, and a recent mention of a built up area around Birkenhead on the government website shows a completely different area[31]. Orange sticker (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly for the latest census they've redefined what built up area means. Previously built up areas were made up of built up area subdivsions. But for the latest census the subdivisions have been renamed built up areas and they form built up conglomerations together. But they havent released the data for conglomerations yet. Theres more information on it here [32]. Eopsid (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing mostly to Nomis/ONS, with a few additional. The book source appears not to use the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat what I said at length about original research machine-generated statistical areas and false conurbations at the two prior AFD discussions, but what I said there holds here as well.
Indeed, reading the 1966 source by Freeman, which couldn't possibly support an ONS invention from 2011, reveals that indeed it doesn't support a "built up area" at all, or even a conurbation. It talks, in fact, of the "weaving area" towns of Lancashire, also called the "cotton mill towns", and more formally the Lancashire cotton industry, which a redirect to a couple of sentences really does not do justice to, given the existence of entire books just on that subject (e.g. Mary B. Rose's History since 1700 and stuff by Sydney John Chapman) and articles like JSTOR 2589825, JSTOR 621119, and JSTOR 1810346.
This article has no bearing on improving Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" or "cotton mill" towns into a break-out sub-article, however. This subject has not escaped the confines of its creator in what is now 12 years. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are they false conurbations? I weakly support deletion but this is definitely a conurbation by definition of the word. Its just not notable enough for an article. The 1966 source (conurbations of Great Britain) has a whole section on the Burnley conurbation on page 240. Amongst other things it says: "Along the road and canal through Brierfield to Nelson and Barrowford there is continuous town". I'm unsure what you mean about the Weaving area? That book clearly says that the weaving area includes four conurbations: Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington and Rossendale and then goes into detail on all four. Eopsid (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think this should be merged with the Burnley article Eopsid (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accrington/Rossendale built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to one website (assuming it's reliable) this BUA existed from 2011 to 2022 and is now classed as inactive.[33] Rupples (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they redefined the BUAs for the 2021 census but they havent released the data for it yet. Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage of this built-up area to enable a GNG pass. Sources in the article are the Office for National Statistics, which defined the area and citypopulation.de, which replicates data. Needs commentary in addition to a definition and data. Not sure a single redirect would work. Possible multiple merges into the constituent settlement articles, but is there any point given the lack of coverage of the term? Rupples (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources outside of the 2011 census and mirrors of that data. This area didnt exist as one built up area in the previous 2001 census which considered Accrington and Rossendale seperately. Other sources like the book "The conurbations of Great Britain" also treat the Accrington and Rossendale areas as seperate built up areas/conurbations. So I dont think we are going to find any more sources. Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Groovenexus

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NCORP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not noteworthy. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some promotional coverage of acts they've signed, but I can't find anything beyond four hits in Gnews that basically confirm the company exists and does buisness. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

APUS Group

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

Almost entirely promotional and not indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability per WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YIHETANG

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This content is a English version of Wikipedia translation using Wikipedia. The content has been reviewed and hopes to pass 雪影惊鸿 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yihetang is a major Chinese tea chain with over 8000 outlets and the Chinese article at zh:益禾堂 is reasonably sourced. Their presence on the English internet is minimal so far, but they're starting a major overseas push into SE Asia. Jpatokal (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term, which belongs on Wiktionary instead. While LOL is a popular slang term, the article doesn't provide enough in-depth information beyond what a dictionary already covers.

If we keep this, should every internet abbreviation (BRB, OMG, ROFL) get its own page too? Instead of having separate articles for every slang term, it's better to merge this into a broader article on internet slang or just redirect it to Wiktionary. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I won't litigate other abbreviations here. LOL is a notable term with an encyclopaedic history worth preserving; the current state of the article doesn't impact that the topic is notable and could be expanded ([34]) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are cases where terms have articles because sources provide commentary on their history and social significance, which wouldn't be described in much detail on an average dictionary. There is coverage on the history out there, not to mention all those reputable sources on the analysis section, which wouldn't fit a dictionary. Other terms like OMG are individually evaluated by their own merits. Maybe the "Variations on the theme" section could be cut down, but that can be fixed by editing. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The variations section always needs cutting down, and for years I kept doing that (e.g. Special:Diff/34413823). The problem is that that part of the article is a magnet for unverifiable invented stuff. Ironically, that was what the whole article looked like back in its early years. Vide Special:Permalink/17843080 for example. The vandalism did settle down somewhat when it stopped being just a laundry list of examples with no actual verifiable linguistic analysis at all, yet another example of how one successfully tackles cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.
  The nominator's argument that this somehow sets a precedent of some kind is entirely based upon total ignorance of Wikipedia history. We've managed to keep dictionary articles on all of the nonce words out for almost 2 decades at this point by having this article. Witness Roflcopter (AfD discussion) and Lollerskates (AfD discussion) for just two AFD examples and the many redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/LOL.
  Feel free to prune the unsourced overgrowth of non-Wiktionary variations yet again in my stead. It turns out that I am busy with a bizarre combination of an old onion railway in Indiana, a 19th century French poet-cum-botanist-cum-geographer, and some machine-generated places in the U.K.. And Marshall Fields. ☺
  Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedy. This is clearly a topic that has been covered in ways that give it an encyclopedic scope. BD2412 T 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term is simply not true. The term is culturally significant and the article includes details about its influence, reception, and spread, the majority of which could not be reasonably included in a dictionary. (As another user pointed out, the lack of articles for other abbreviations is not a valid argument, but FWIW some of them are covered in the article you have nominated for deletion...) Pink Bee (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article goes well beyond a dictionary definition. It has well sourced sections on history and analysis that clearly meet WP:GNG. I don't find any of the reasons that OP has proposed to be valid WP:DELREASONS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is not particularly relevant here, as the issue is not about general notability but rather whether the article aligns with Wikipedia's content policies. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is key—while the article may go beyond a simple definition, that alone doesn’t justify its inclusion if it primarily serves an explanatory rather than encyclopedic purpose. The presence of sourced history and analysis doesn’t automatically override concerns about scope and purpose 1keyhole (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOTDICTIONARY has a section about articles like this: WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I believe that applies here. In particular, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term is a remarkably good description of what is in the LOL article. Pink Bee (talk) 00:07, 9 February 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. Hoax/spam. UtherSRG (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Davi Santiago de Souza

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

Notability is not established. Fails WP:BIO. WP:BOMBARD is always suggestive of a PR effort. I see that here. I do not see reliable sources; instead I see churnalism. This is WP:ADMASQ. I also have no idea what the link farm is at the foot of the article. This is again highly indicative of PR material. I suspect we are WP:TOOSOON. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are promo-like and unreliable. Skyshiftertalk 16:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources fail WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor, I recognize your dedication to making Wikipedia an increasingly better space. Do not delete this encyclopedia. See that Davi Santiago de Souza, no matter how young he is, already makes a big difference as a young mentor, we should, as conscious people, allow him to be seen by others. If it is necessary to reformulate the text, we will do that, not just request removal. This is what inexperienced editors do who do not seek to solve the problem, but rather forget about it. Enzo Duart (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to the eventual closer: I feel we must interpret this as keep even though there is no policy based rationale.

I suppose I must now accept that I am an inexperienced editor, setting my edit count against the edit count of @Enzo Duart. What they do not understand is that my opinions count for precisely as much or as little as theirs. While this is not a ballot, I and they have precisely as much influence as each other. However, those who argue from a policy standpoint make the better case. I am not belittling their edit count nor an I emphasising mine. I am simply setting them straight on the point they make regarding assumptions of experience.

I invite them to offer a policy based rationale to keep the article, please. Offer it once and well, and you may change my mind. I will not enter into a dialogue about it here, though. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You crack me up, FF! - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @UtherSRG and you still want to be seen as a professional. You read the opinion of an editor friend and start mocking. Friends, let's just accept that Wikipedia needs to be improved, and we are that improvement. We will not allow editors, no matter how old they are, like @UtherSRG, to make us fail in our mission: Creating a better place on Wiki. After all, we are a family, right? And@Timtrent, know that many edits do not mean he is better than you. Because we thought that only an adult could be a mentor, and we are debating about a 15-year-old. I end by saying: May God bless you! Enzo Duart (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Enzo Duart: Please "read the room" and see what the appropriate format of a response here is. we should, as conscious people, allow him to be seen by others is very much a statement that is counter to what Wikipedia is about and is inherently promotional. Our requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia involve a particular definition of notability. You would do well to understand that before insisting that something belongs here. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG Do not judge this request by my speech which you misinterpreted. I do not want to create a promotional article. If I wanted to, I think I would be asking you for help to correct it and make it only informative and without at any time seeking to promote the young. Enzo Duart (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is incredibly promotional and is too soon for sure. WP:PROMO WP:TOOSOON. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh This is what makes me upset, when someone sees that there is a problem (promotional content) and doesn't try to solve it, they just delete it and that's it. Do you really think an experienced editor would do that? Please understand me, I just want notable figures like Davi Santiago, who seek to make a difference, to have a space, even if it's a small one, on Wikipedia. Enzo Duart (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Without even considering notability, the article was written with an overwhelming tone of promoting him.

Was it written with AI? Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettably, @Enzo Duart, you are banging the experienced editor drum again, and that is starting to become uncivil. Please do n0t keep telling editors in good standing that they lack experience. For reference their edit count is pleasingly substantial. Here, that equates to experience. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh@Timtrent@UtherSRG Forgive me for my words, you really are good editors, I have seen some of your edits. I ask that you be professional and analyze my case. I am available to help in whatever way is necessary. Enzo Duart (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Enzo Duart: We have been. We have done so. We've found the article and the subject, lacking. Your zeal is honorable, but misplaced; it amounts to refusal to listen. Please listen to us. And finally, you've made your point, now please step aside and stop bludgeoning. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, a lot of arguments here are "well it might notable, but too soon", that's why we have drafts (see WP:DRAFTREASON, we check off 1 and 3 here, and maybe 2). Deleting is too harsh here, and perhaps a conflict of interest is here as well. This article should be drafted and should not enter the mainspace until it passes through WP:AfC. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your support @Chew Enzo Duart (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – A great example of WP:PIG. Svartner (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Editor, thank you for your comment. I would like to clarify that my goal in creating this article was not to promote the young mentor, but simply to register him on Wikipedia. The story is that he guided my daughter, Graziela, in writing the book An Unshakable Woman. I have always believed in the potential of Wikipedia to finance promising careers, and I decided to contribute by registering his work. I am sure that he will be pleased and that this record will be of help to those who seek his guidance. Enzo Duart (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Comment, Enzo Duart has been p-blocked from here and the article. Star Mississippi 00:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. This guy again? We've been deleting their uploads over on Commons since December. Both this account and user:MentorZero are indeffed on pt.wiki for spamming, and this account is now indeffed on Commons for socking. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a four person sock farm and one additional editor indeffed on ptWiki and Commons. All have been awarded global locks. This appears to be part of a cross WMF sites spam campaign 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:51, 9 February 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.

Moon Over Isla Island

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

Fails WP:GNG as an individual episode. Can't find anything on Google Books, while Google News is just listicles from pop culture websites. Sources provided on page are just ratings digests that don't even name the episode, and even the one review reviewed everything else on Fox that night. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can't search for sources right now to check if it should be kept, but I would suggest redirecting to the season article instead of deleting if it is not kept, as episode titles are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now willing to say redirect – one review is insufficient to keep, and I failed to find further reviews or coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Nelemans

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

Nelemans spent his entire career at amateur levels before apparently retiring in 2013. Secondary source analysis from my search:

Omroep Brabant: Transfer rumor
Eindhovens Dagblat: Managerial announcement
Amateur Voetbal Eindhoven: Interview with small independent analysis and seems to be a local source.
Algemeen Dagblad: Paywalled and only contains him in an image caption.

None of those references contain significant coverage that are required for Wikipedia. Corresponding article on Dutch Wikipedia is just an unsourced dumping ground.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article on nl.wiki also doesn't bring anything promising. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already mentioned that. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 228 apps and 51 goals in the Dutch professional second division, there will be offline sources out there, per WP:COMMONSENSE. There are sufficient online sources that WP:HEY will apply. Giant Snowman 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ahnaf

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

WP:BLP of an actor and model, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or models. As always, actors and models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable source coverage -- but the attempted notability claim here is staked entirely on supporting or bit parts in films that don't even have Wikipedia articles about the films, and the article is sourced entirely to short blurbs and public relations fluff rather than substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant roles (including various lead roles) in series and films (that have a Wikipedia page in Indonesian/Malay) and received coverage in those languages and, to a lesser extent, in English. The page needs expansion

The productions include: Syurga Itu Bukan Mudah (2023); Kahar: Kapla High Council (2024); Scammer Geng Marhaban (2023); Gamers Mangkuk (2023).) Coverage in English includes: https://sea.ign.com/entertainment/208982/news/explores-the-lives-of-amateur-esports-players-in-new-comedy-series-gamers-mangkuk ;https://www.cinema.com.my/articles/news_details.aspx?search=2025.n_kaharheadtoastrofirst_68231 https://thesun.my/style-life/prequel-that-stands-on-its-own-HG13375222 https://thesun.my/style-life/fight-back-to-school-EL10826442

A lot of interviews have introductions that allow to verify the roles and their significance (as well as the notability of the productions). https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2024/10/1124348/showbiz-thats-not-my-photo-why-am-i-being-blamed-–-amir-ahnaf for example or "people/fashion" coverage allowing the same, such as https://www.mens-folio.com/style/boys-will-be-boys-smir-ahnaf-aedy-ashraf-sky-iskandar-superdry/ https://hype.my/2023/324380/actor-amir-ahnaf-on-his-darkest-moment-feeling-empty-after-projek-high-council-success/

A lot more exists in English and in other languages. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Fashion, and Indonesia. -Mushy Yank. 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WYBX

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

Does not seem to be notable. All three refs only provide technical information about the subject. DWF91 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, the parent company. WYBX is not independently notable, and relevant technical information is already there. schetm (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network#Stations: the station did exist for about seven-ten years before BBN took over, but probably did not attain any significant coverage in that time; any notability here, if there were any, would be carried over from that era entirely. The article going back to that era, however, still makes this little more than a remnant of the considerably lower inclusion standards of 2008, when this topic area considered FCC licenses to be a notability sign; that largely faded away after the 2021 RfC that deemed the GNG to be the notability standard here. I think this came under the NPP radar because of an aborted BLAR by Chuterix (talk · contribs), the undo of which was never fully explained, but the reality is it was a correct BLAR, as the rationale not notable on its own appears accurate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, as the same reasons as schem and WcQuidditch (fails WP:GNG). Chuterix (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swissborg

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

Promotional. No evidence of notability under WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE shows only coverage in crypto sites. Needs some RSes up to the standards of WP:NCORP. PROD removed without adding suitable RSes. - David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Switzerland. David Gerard (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Qazançı

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT. Could be summarized and merged to Qazançı, Agdam and sourced there if possible, then redirected. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Azerbaijan. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banani DNCC-Unique Complex

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the sources give significant coverage to the topic, Only 1-2 lines are about the building in the sources. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle

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

While this has a short receptions section, it is made of a few WP:SIGCOV mentions in passing, listicles, and even some passing commentary from a minor YouTuber. this fails WP:GNG. At best, this can be redirected, per WP:ATD-R, to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if this didn't have enough sources for an article; this is almost certainly extremely well documented from 1960s and 1970s sources alone. I haven't looked too far yet but the very first result is something that isn't even in the article yet, a 2001 Billboard piece reporting Vince Clarke and Martyn Ware naming their album this. Second result (ISBN 9781785306396) is about Dinky dedicating an entire plant to just this one toy. Third result is Bentley's book, already liberally used in the article. Fourth result is an Amberly book that has the SPV, not even used in the article (ISBN 9781445648736). Given the designer, almost certainly ISBN 9781932563825, again not even used in the article, is probably worth a look. The next result is ISBN 9780563534815, already used by the article. And so on. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am dubious about there being WP:SIGCOV as opposed to a lot of trivial mentions, and the same is true of all the vehicles in this series. Merging them all to a list of vehicles might be apt if they are talked about as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thelwell

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

Footballer and football coach who according to the article made no pro appearances and has to date totalled 2 days as a pro club manager, as interim Derby manager,18 years ago. Lacks significant coverage. C 679 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. C 679 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 13:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Poorly-formatted article without evidence of notability. Sources are mostly transfer announcements and brief mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf (helicopter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Plot summary plus a bit about the film prop and its history, as well as some replicas. Longer and with many refs, but I couldn't find anything that is reliable and WP:SIGCOV, so this fails WP:GNG, and has some WP:OR issues too. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this can be redirected to Airwolf. PS. Keep from ~10 years ago was based on the fact that passing mentions of this have been found here and there, and of course, that it was a "main feature of a notable work of fiction" (which back then was enough for many folks... how time have changed, eh?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and Aviation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a whole to Airwolf. Being a "main feature of a notable work of fiction" is still absolutely a basis for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but in this case both articles are short enough that they would benefit from the information being in a single place. BD2412 T 17:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fictitious helicopter, from a television series not sufficiently well-known worldwide, doesn't seem to be worthy of note. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airwolf is certainly notable and I would agree with BD2412 as to the virtues of a merge here. However we have a substantial body of content about the real world helicopter used for filming and so we get to the question of balance and structure of the article. Is that best as a single article, swollen by this section? Or by separating it out, as we have at present? We can justify either according to policy, but I see the best results as being how it is at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Airwolf was pre-Internet, so I'm expecting there will be plenty of offline sources. For example, I can find Spark, A. (1989). Flight Controls: The Social History of the Helicopter as a Symbol of Vietnam. In: Walsh, J., Aulich, J. (eds) Vietnam Images: War and Representation. Insights. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19916-7_6 but I don't have access to the whole chapter to see if the snippet Google Scholar brings up is sufficiently significant. And, of course, no objection to a merge to the series article, although I disagree that in any case it should be forced as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless drastically improved, there is no real keep argument here since there is a legitimate place to point it and it is, as a whole, unencyclopedic, failing WP:NOT regardless of its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the helo exists outside the show with a well-sourced history. - \\'cLf 07:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE Industrial Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with history to Belcan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Thunder (helicopter)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fictional 'copter, and a film prop. Poorly referenced to a YouTube video, and various primary materials. Poorly written WP:FANCRUFT that at best, per WP:ATD-R, could be redirected to Blue Thunder (the movie it originally appeared in). PS. It's interesting to consider how our standards have changed in the 11 years since prior AfD; where arguments like "it's enough that it is well written and has some references", "it is notable in the context of the series", and "it is a major part of a story of a notable work" held sway... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Aviation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a whole to Blue Thunder. There is sufficient basis for inclusion of this subject in an encyclopedia, but both articles are short enough that they would benefit from the information being in a single place. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as BD2412. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Unlike Airwolf, there was nothing particularly special about the helicopter, either in fiction or in real life. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as stated above. Notable helicopter info can be covered at Blue Thunder or other similar article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Polychrest

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

Fictional ship. Short plot summary and that's all; my BEFORE failst to find anything better. Per WP:ADT-R, suggest redirecting this to the Aubrey–Maturin series. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aubrey–Maturin series, fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sought this article to learn about the historically vessel(s) O'Brian based this ship upon, a literary practice he was known for. I found the information I needed and links to the Wikipedia pages about those real ships.I could never have found that info without this article. It should be retained. Hal Sawyer. 108.4.208.55 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Block (basketball)

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

No sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED) in reliable sources. The single play with a broader game, with a broader finals series is already well discussed at 2016 NBA Finals#Game 7. Note that this proposal follows from the reversal of a December merge (see Talk:2016 NBA Finals#Merger discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JDS Mirai

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

Fictional ship. Pure plot summary, no WP:GNG. My BEFORE fails to find anything, and while I cannot search in Japanse I would be very, very surprised if such a niche topic had any sources in any language. Per WP:ATD-R, we can redirect this to Zipang (manga). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airwolf (helicopter) (2nd nomination). A fictitious helicopter doesn't seem to be worthy of note. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I'll note that the above delete !vote has no policy basis. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zipang (manga) per nom; this article is almost entirely plot and has little real-world notability. Link20XX (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chandler (The Last Ship)

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

Fictional character. Pure plot summary. Fails WP:GNG; my BEFORE fails to find anything useful. Per WP:ATD-R can be merged or just redirected to List of The Last Ship characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USS Nathan James

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

Fictional ship from a novel (also a TV series based on it). Pure plot summary. Fails WP:GNG; BEFORE finds nothing useful. Suggest redirecting to The Last Ship (novel) per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Since it is featured in more than one creative work. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
by which you mean, "a book, and an adaptation of that book"? DS (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Bansal

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

Simply holding the position of secretary or national secretary of a political party does not satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria, and the subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Spark

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

Major WP:GNG and WP:V failure. Very poorly referenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, summarizing a plot point (history of a fictional ship), and cataloging its appearances in various media, making WP:ORish claims that "The stories sparked considerable interest in the puffers, and many books explore their now vanished world." (in any case, if the stories sparked interest, that's not the same as this fictional ship doing that...). The articles does not even make the claim that one particular work or series is relevant to this ship, so I am not even sure what might be a plausible redirect target (per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Transportation and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has also been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland._{Cactus.man ✍} 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ If sources can't be found to meet GNG, I'd suggest merging to Para Handy - that's the article about this long-running franchise as a whole, and the information about the various TV series featuring the Vital Spark is duplicated there (whereas it currently doesn't even have a photo of the ship). Adam Sampson (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A merge or redirect are always better than outright deletion, thanks for the suggestion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a Keep now with the new sources. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Para Handy per the suggestion by Adam Sampson. The term "Vital Spark" will have widespread recognition amongst Scottish readers and those of wider literary awareness, but two of the three Notes in the article are currently dead links. I think encyclopaedia coverage is therefore still warranted. Cactus.man ✍ 16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Keep in light of the substantial improvement work done by Drchriswilliams to bring the article up to sufficient standard that it now easily satisfies WP:GNG Cactus.man ✍ 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I'd be happy to withdraw this after improvements, but I don't see them. As in, there are some changes, but I still do not see any analysis/reception or such; all that is written and referenced is pretty much what appears to be a 'list of ships with that name in fiction and real life'.
_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was surprised to see an article with such an iconic name nominated, but I found the article was in bad shape. While the name started off as fiction, there came to be several vessels associated with the name. There is plenty of coverage in newspapers of Vital Spark Clyde puffers that have appeared in the various television series. Several of the articles feature pictures of the vessels. I have added a range of sources over several decades. I've edited the lead to reflect this. There is a bit of duplication of content across the articles on Neil Munro, Para Handy and the three series. The Para Handy article isn't particularly well referenced but some of the plot-related content could be moved to those if it helped to keep it in one place. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I am a bit hesitant still, the article has been expanded to a stage where I'd feel confident in letting this stay around. Unopposed to further discussion in the future, but for now these sources definitely seem to illustrate the subject has some degree of notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raghunatha Reddy

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

Can't find any interviews or media articles that are about him. The only thing that I can find is passing mentions in Idlebrain.com reviews [35]. He seems to have played the father character in some films and minor characters in some films. I can only find sources about Palle Raghunatha Reddy. DareshMohan (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Roadies: Double Cross

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

While there has been a substantial amount of work done since this was draftified previously, the references are not useful in verifying notability. It relies on two sources flagged as unreliable and used in multiple places. Substantial improvement to the referencing quality will solve this problem. Fails WP:V - I would have returned it to draft with this issue, but am prevented by WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is why we are here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with MTV Roadies. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Churn and burn

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

"Churn and burn" is an expression in English, but the claim that it specifically refers to an anti-union tactic is dubious. The only reference in this article is a dead link to what appears to have been a minor news bit that was tangentially related at best. Google results reveal the phrase being used in many contexts with many meanings, but all references to it as a union-busting tactic seem to derive from this article, and even if some earlier reference could be found it would only be one of many uses of this stock expression. We don't have an article for "kill two birds with one stone" and we certainly don't describe it as concept in efficiency theory because one article used the expression. We should stop the cycle of citogenesis. -- LWG ^talk 15:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this, and there's not a coherent concept by this name to be had; lots of uses of the phrase, but all disconnected. I cannot find a way to turn that into an article, and what is here already from 2011 is a stretch. Idiosyncratic non-topic, as deletion policy used to say. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hanli Hoefer

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

Single liner article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daoneua Siviengxay

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. First name or last name may be misspelled. Unable to find name in original script, which made searches difficult. C 679 08:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Laos. C 679 08:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2022 PROD removed with rationale at this Old revision of Daoneua Siviengxay. C 679 08:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2012 AFF Championship squads#Laos – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities, towns and villages in the Maldives

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

The article only lists the cities and atoll capitals, which List of islands of the Maldives already do. This article could be redirected to that article since it fits WP:ATD-R. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Maldives. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 08:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to merge the articles? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 10:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Why is that? Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 16:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep It's a list that's clearly a part of an established set of articles. Just because it's duplicative doesn't mean we can't have it - someone looking for this list may not know to go to the List of islands of the Maldives. SportingFlyer T·C 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Administrative divisions of the Maldives, which already has prose about cities and atolls and tables with all of the atoll capitals and cities. I see no need for this duplicative page (there is nothing to even merge it seems), and a redirect and updated links will help users find this. Reywas92^Talk 19:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Administrative divisions of the Maldives: as suggested by Reywas. A redundant fork. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have two different Merger/Redirect target articles suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands of the Maldives, makes the most sense as it lists in detail islands and their subdivisions (i.e. cities, towns or villages), while the other article primarily serves to discussion how the country is administratively organized. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Lamp

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

It appears to struggle with notability. Coverage appears to be around Harald Riegler and THQ Nordic's acquisition. Found this article from Der Standard for the latter. Perhaps merging into the legacy of Sproing Interactive or into THQ Nordic? IgelRM (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to THQ Nordic#Subsidiaries – Where the studio was mentioned. Svartner (talk) 00:00, 9 February 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 by Jimfbleak per G11. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metin Durmaz

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

This page may be considered for deletion because it does not have enough references to demonstrate notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. The article is missing coverage from independent, reliable sources, relying instead on self-promotion or primary sources, which is crucial to satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards for individuals in business and entrepreneurship. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:G11 as a promotional vanity page. Tag was removed by the nom due to an edit conflict, but I've now re-added it accordingly. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing my nomination. I completely agree with User:CycloneYoris, so please close this discussion as this is clearly a WP:G11 case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garvitpandey1522 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 February 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.

Ras Opoku

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

Article about musical artist that does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. Nothing in the text of this article addresses any of the musical notability criteria or refers to third-party significant coverage. This article was draftified six months ago and has been moved back to article space, and so is a contested draftification that should not be unilaterally moved back to draft space again. A review of the sources shows that they are a user-generated biography, an interview, and listings by music streaming services. There is no independent secondary coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.deezer.com	Biographical sketch on site that has user-generated content	No	Yes	No. User-generated.	No
2	www.graphic.com.gh	An interview.	No	Yes	?	No
3	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No
4	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No
5	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Ghana. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've seen this hundreds of times with new African musicians. They pay for placement in unreliable regional publications that simply reprint press releases, then try to use those as proof of media coverage in a WP article. Good luck to him as he gets started but he has to do the work to get noticed by reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Ying (producer)

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42. Fails WP:GNG. Rosentad (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: Justification for Dai Ying’s Notability

I strongly believe that Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:ENT (Entertainment Industry-Specific Notability) due to her leadership role at iQIYI, her involvement in award-winning productions, and significant media coverage. Below are the key reasons why this article should be retained:

1. Professional Roles

Dai Ying is a Vice President at iQIYI, one of China’s largest video streaming platforms, and serves as the General Manager of the Original Drama Development Center. Her leadership role in overseeing original content development at iQIYI positions her as an influential figure in China’s entertainment industry.[36] Executive-level figures in major entertainment companies frequently meet notability guidelines, given their direct impact on large-scale productions.

Dai Ying, as Vice President of iQIYI, is directly responsible for developing original content and overseeing hit Chinese dramas that gained international recognition (The Bad Kids, The Long Night)[37]. This aligns with figures like Ted Sarandos, Kathleen Kennedy, and Bela Bajaria, who are considered notable for their impact on streaming and original content production.

Another crucial aspect to consider is the underrepresentation of Chinese women executives in the entertainment industry on Wikipedia. While Western executives frequently meet notability guidelines, there are very few articles on Chinese female media executives, despite their significant impact on the entertainment industry.

Wikipedia has a well-documented systemic bias issue, particularly in terms of gender and geographical representation. Studies reported on Wikipedia have shown that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s coverage. As mentioned by the co-founder Jimmy Wales, as a newcomer female editor, I'm hoping to be encouraged by writing about notable women in my lifetime even though I work 12 hours in a restaurant. Wikipedia is an inspiration and gives me hope one day I can also work in an office.

Women in Chinese entertainment and business leadership are often overlooked, despite their contributions to global media.

2. Notable Productions with scale

Dai Ying has served as the executive producer for several critically acclaimed Chinese dramas that have gained international recognition.[38] These include:

The Bad Kids – A highly acclaimed suspense drama that became a cultural phenomenon in China, gaining high ratings on Douban (8.9/10) and sparking widespread discussion.
The Long Night – An award-winning drama that received the Best OTT Original Series Award at the Busan International Film Festival. The show was also broadcast on NHK Japan.
"Dr. Tang" – A notable medical drama highlighting China’s advancements in medical technology.
War of Faith - Captured the attention of overseas markets

These productions have been recognized both domestically and internationally, which strengthens Dai Ying’s case for notability. She has produced over 30 dramas. The dramas she produced has received 7 wins and 2 nominations.

Source: IMDb

3. Significant Media Coverage

Dai Ying has been interviewed and featured in various reputable media outlets discussing her role in shaping China’s streaming industry. These interviews and articles provide independent, in-depth coverage of her work, meeting Wikipedia’s WP:GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources.

Source: Launch new projects

Source: Won Producer of the Year

Conclusion

Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines as:

She holds a top executive role at a major streaming company (iQIYI).

She has produced multiple award-winning, widely recognized dramas.

She has received independent media coverage from reputable sources.

Based on these factors, I urge editors to reconsider the deletion nomination. I am most willing to learn and would greatly appreciate sharing on feedback on how to improve the article.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Heureuxl 18:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heureuxl is the creator of this article (posted by Nominator). Rosentad (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral, ~~I agree that [39] [40] likely constitute GNG, unless there is some connection between Sohu and iQIYI that I haven't found which would make them non-independent.~~ (stricken per comment below) As a heads up for the future @Heureuxl, WP:WALLSOFTEXT are much less likely to help your argument than a more succinct and focused argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity and well-understood on this.

Heureuxl 01:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower: Source [4] actually originates from Qianlong.com (here) and is not an official Sohu release. It's most likely a commercial press release, as it's very promotional and doesn't have the reporter's name on it. Source [5] is actually posted by a Sohu self-media account. It is self-published content. They are clearly not independent of the subject. Rosentad (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies — wasn't familiar with Sohu's formatting. I'll change my vote to neutral to now, there's enough breadth of coverage that it seems plausible to me that this subject could meet notability, but I don't have the experience to properly navigate the sourcing. [41] This source seems like it may meet GNG but it may also be self published, and this source [42] reads a bit promotional in tone (from the generated translation at least) but may also qualify. She also has an entry to on the CN Wikipedia, which could be used to find additional sourcing [43], though this entry is also tagged with concerns about COI and promotional content. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosentad @Wasianpower

Thank you for your feedback. But just because it's reported by a sohu self media account, how does it say that it's self published content when it's a media report? Please let me know so I can improve my 3rd party sources selection for the future. Also, how can I further improve the article? Thank you both.

Heureuxl 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Producers are run of the mill, and do not get an encyclopedia article unless they pass both WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Almost all producers are just managers of money and other resources. They are not creative people. If they are involved with the creative process, then we have a whole Guideline for that. I don't see how the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited," or has been "known for originating a significant new concept," etc, or theory, or technique. The only argument is the subject had "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Turning to significant coverage about them, I find it lacking. Compare Lorne Michaels. Bearian (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Heureuxl, in AFDs, we don't need your arguments about why a subject is notable, we need solid, reliable sources that demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with Bearian that she definitely doesn't qualify for WP:NCREATIVE — she is a media executive, not a "creative professional". I had a look at Chinese language sources to see if there might be enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but wasn't able to find anything particularly useful. There are plenty of mentions/quotes in articles about new shows, a few interviews, and a few pieces about minor awards she's won, but nothing beyond that. Her articles on Baidu Baike and zhwiki don't have anything that would indicate a GNG pass either. MCE89 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FAIRR Initiative

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

This organisation fails WP:NORG. Sources are none other than routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : While the article is basically an ad and perhaps needs a total rewrite, I don't think sources are an issue. See [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, but these were just the first things I found after hardly any searching. The coverage seems far beyond routine. — Anonymous 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these sources were created by the org, and the rest are churnalism in trade publications (WP:TRADES) based on press releases. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Organizations, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There might be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG. Reuters, FT are the best I could find; there's a lot of less significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable initiative with pretty decent sourcing, mentioned above and we should keep in mind that there are almost additional sources in printed or other media per WP:NEXIST for such kind of orgs.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a general rule to participants in an AFD, PLEASE do not recommend sources unless you have checked them out before listing them in your comments. It's your job to vet the sources before suggesting them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NAIA national football championship series appearances by team

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

Subject lacks the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources as is currently the case here and a BEFORE didn't come up with anything better. PROD was removed without a rationale so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I'm not sure this will letter of the law qualify but deleting this also feels like removing part of a set of college football stats articles. I can't make a source based argument for keep, but this isn't a delete which "feels" like it makes the encyclopaedia better. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the info can be covered in a different article? That being said, wikipedia isn't everything. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem if a better article or article title is established, I'd just prefer not to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same reaction as Sporting Flyer. The piece is well done and sourced, records a significant piece of college football history, and seems to make the encyclopeida better. And I did find this which discusses the topic of NAIA teams ranked by the number of postseason appearances. Cbl62 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE for the reasons stated by Cbl62. It would be a shame if the encyclopedia were to lose this information. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think there are any independent sources regarding the set, but individual sourcing on each team's total playoff appearances seems likelier to find. I agree with Cbl62 that a list such as this is encyclopedic. Therefore, I would prefer a different option than deleting. A rename or even merge target may work better. Conyo14 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are suggestions for ATDs, but can we please come into an agreement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into NAIA football national championship. Wikipedia is ultimately WP:NOTSTATS but I recognize the value of having table as an enhancement to the encyclopedia if its properly sourced. I still agree with OP that it fails WP:NLIST and doesn't deserve its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a target I can agree with. Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with this. Let'srun (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Affairs Office (Syria)

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

Likely to become notable, but WP:TOOSOON. All we have are a handful of news articles from about a month ago and no further coverage. The status of the government of Syria itself is murky enough. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oppose, it seems to be a cabinet-level office and a part of the government. It is already there and it is already something. Not being covered enough doesn't mean that it's not notable enough I believe.

- RamiPat (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Note that comments should be placed at the bottom of deletion discussions.) Unfortunately, that is indeed how notability works. — Anonymous 00:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as an alternative to deletion. BilletsMauves^€500 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "Not being covered enough doesn't mean that it's not notable", coverage by reliable sources is how we assess notability so I disagree. Read WP:N.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:CRYSTAL. Unremarkable and nothing guarantees that it will become. Svartner (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame (2025)

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

WP:TOOSOON, Although, it is announced that Paul "Triple H" Levesque that will inducted on Hall of Fame, it is premature to create this solely article. However, there is a section on WWE Hall of Fame#2025. Much likely supporting to Redirect for a while, then if it's announced completely who's in the hall of fame, it can be created solely. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now, until/unless we get more to work with. It's WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 as per LM2000, the topic simply does not have enough information at this time to warrant a standalone article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Clear secondary sources exist such as [51] and the event is two months away. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is obviously WP:TOOSOON like you said, it's two months away. According to WP:TOOSOON:Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. It's Triple H that only have an announcement that inducted on Hall of Fame and if there is will be on hall of fame without a reliable sources might be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read what I wrote? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now. Per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:PWEVENT once the date and location has been announced for these events its deemed to have met the notability criteria. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The date and location for this event have already been announced according to the article. The date is April 18, 2025, and the location is T-Mobile Arena in Paradise, Nevada. So, it is keep. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be real the date and place have not been confirmed yet- it is a bullshit 2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6:Please be Civil to your vote. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (attorney)

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

Fails GNG. She assumed some positions at the United States Copyright Office, but none of them was extraordinary enough to confer her notability. Even if some positions she held are notable enough to have a stand-alone page, that doesn't automatically make her notable.

[52] Blog source.
[53] Routine announcement, which most people who get appointed to assume relevant federal roles usually get.
[54] Mostly Strong talking about her own work, not an independent source. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the valid arguments made by @TJRC
Nayyn (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She didn't just assume "some positions" at the Copyright Office; she was acting Register of Copyrights, the top position, the head of the entire Copyright Office, with responsibility for all U.S. policy relating to copyright law. I know that "register" sounds like a purely ministerial title, like a county register, but it is the equivalent to a position like the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's just that the USPTO head's title has changed from the mundane U.S. Commissioner of Patents to the more ornate Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, while the Copyright Office has stuck to its original title. Frankly, each of the registers in the List of registers of copyrights merits an article.

No objection to improving the sourcing.

Disclosure: I'm the editor who initially wrote the article. Frankly, I think it was better -- in content, sourcing and clarity of notability -- in its original form. I agree it should be cleaned up; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you using to back up the notability of this topic? NPOL? If yes then they didn’t merit NPOL#1, the sources itself are neither sufficient to merit NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is very clearly a national agency; and the head of the United States Copyright Office is very clearly someone "who [has] held ... national office" by virtue of holding the office heading that agency. TJRC (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is a part of the Library Congress. This is what NPOL#1 says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Which part of NPOL here does she pass? She doesn’t pass NPOL#2 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for your confusion. Are you saying that the US Copyright Office is not a federal agency? TJRC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of every federal agency is not notable; that’s not what NPOL is about. "Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find SIGCOV in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources." Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per TJRC. For the record, most active Wikipedians are 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the subject via the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors member Kat Walsh, who's a mutual connection on LinkedIn and Copyright Counsel at Creative Commons. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't necessarily understand the views above about WP:GNG. Serving non significant or perhaps public political or literary offices doesn't meets WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. They’re a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TJRC. She was also vice-president of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, and was quoted in that role in newspaper articles about laws relating to piracy of software, CDs, etc. She has also published book chapters and journal articles on copyright. I have added some refs and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to qualify for WP:NPOL and also doesn't match WP:GNG. Pollia (talk) 10:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Acting or not, there is a single Register of Copyrights for the whole of the United States, and their legal responsibility is substantial. While the case would be stronger if this was a presidentially appointed position, it is still a nonfunctionary national office, the equivalent of an agency head. BD2412 T 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Gurung

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

Role in just a single Notable film, the subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karanni

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

Having examined all the sources in the article (except the offline German article from the 1930s), and done some searches of my own, I think there is only a single sentence of information extant about this figure: he was king when Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma invaded Hayasa-Azzi. He gets namedropped in passing in histories of the Hittites, but the discussion does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharampal Singh (party secretary)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The subject just holds a state-level post of a Notable National Party in India. Taabii (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the person before him holding this post Sunil Bansal also had a Wikipedia page and this is a notable post in the party's state unit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplify Digital 21 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Holding a party office alone does not confer notability, even if the office itself is notable. WP:NPOL only applies to state offices. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply holding the position of secretary or national secretary of a political party does not satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria, and the subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While WP:NPOL is clearly not met, I'd like to see a deeper source analysis before concluding whether WP:GNG is met or not. Some sources such as the two from The Indian Express ([55] and [56]) appear to provide some level of WP:SIGCOV (that source is considered reliable, see Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India). I haven't checked the other sources, but it would be worth to look deeper into them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avon School District (Massachusetts)

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

Likely fails WP:GNG. Merge and redirect this content to Avon, Massachusetts#Education. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, United States of America, and Massachusetts. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A school district is a type of municipality, and its boundaries are not necessarily the same as a town of the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, they are the same. And how does that address the notability argument? –Aidan721 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721: The idea is that a municipality is a government-recognized place, and so it is not necessary to do the work to prove it as notable. However in Massachusetts, school districts do have the same boundaries as municipalities. Also, the US Census Bureau considers most Massachusetts school districts as being dependencies of municipal governments. Therefore, if this school district is deemed not notable, it can be merged into Avon, Massachusetts. Anyhow, I will look for information on this district. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per School Committee Policy Manual from the offical website: The area served by the Avon Public Schools is conterminous with the Town of Avon (p. 6). –Aidan721 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. New England school districts have school district boundaries be the same as municipal boundaries. In the case of regional school districts, boundaries are the same as the two or more municipalities included. The concept of school districts crossing municipal and county boundaries reflect school districts in most states, but not in MA. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the notability argument: "likely" to fail the GNG? Didn't you check? Ravenswing 05:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found an angle in which keep can be an outcome: I found an article in which a superintendent took a tour of China and as a result, began to consider expanding academic courses on China. And I found another article on how the school district no longer could have Latin.
Kazarian, Christopher (2006-07-13). "Ex-Southampton resident to tour China on Fulbright". The Summit. Easthampton, Massachusetts. pp. 1, 3 – via Newspapers.com.

Melanson, Mike (2008-08-26). "Lack of teacher means no Latin for Avon students". Wicked Local. Retrieved 2025-02-08.
I found other articles on changes of superintendents, but I think these two articles have the best SIGCOV on this district.
WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, additional SIGCOV is in the article about how the district had to use churches during a repair of the school: Coleman, Sandy (2004-10-03). "Public schooling, church setting". Boston Globe. pp. Globe South 1, 5 – via Newspapers.com. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Delicious One

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

A user DePRODed this article stating to "not delete this because it can still have good sources and to give it a chance", however, I am not seeing this having good sources, it has failed WP:GNG for 15 years. This source might be good, ^[1], but it is still not enough to separate an article for the mascot. Opolito was right to PROD it, and he is also right that reliable sourcing will never happen. Toby2023 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not kept, I would recommend merging the info to Wienerschnitzel as its own section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "'The Delicious One' speaks in new TV spots for Wienerschnitzel". Nation's Restaurant News. October 2, 2000. Archived from the original on February 13, 2011.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Food and drink, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero notability, poorly written piece of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wienerschnitzel - The mascot is already mentioned on the main article, so Redirecting would be a valid WP:ATD. Since the only sourced content here is merely confirming that the character is an advertising mascot of Wienerschnitzel, which is already stated on the main article, I don't really see the need for a Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Wienerschnitzel – All the mascot description fits perfectly into the main article. Svartner (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sathyam gujja

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

Recreation of salted title: Sathyam Gujja, which was salted in 2021 due to constant recreation. Subject appears to lack notability, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't show much, if any, coverage from reliable sources. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a well known activist in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, he has gained more prominence in the past 4 years and deserves to be known Abcd45678 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the subject is a back ward class activist and also an educationalist.see the references^[1] D u p e s g w y n (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Just want to note that user above did not have any contributions prior to this AfD, and is likely a sock of the author. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/districts/hyderabad-news/529/124066274

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True Market Value

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

True Market Value is a common term. It refers to the price a buyer is willing to pay for a property, a product or service. It is not restricted to the real estate market or to online auctions. The text of this article is gibberish to me. The term True Market Value does not require a Wikipedia article; maybe an entry in wiktionary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Arroyo

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentine rugby player. JTtheOG (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has played professionally for Benetton Rugby in the United Rugby Championship, a top-tier international competition, and has represented Argentina at the Under-20 level, demonstrating notability in rugby. His career has been covered by reliable sources--Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one source providing SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing beyond passing mentions on ProQuest. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Darkness Gathering

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

Single, unnotable game accessory, only reviewed in 2 magazines, which are passing mentions. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added summaries of the two listed reviews to the article, and used details from the reviews to expand the description of the subject. The two reviews are not "passing mentions"; each is several hundred words long. Notability is not in question.Guinness323 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to the improvments we now have a referenced non-stubby article, which demonstrates that the reviews were not passing mentions, and therefore the topic fullfilling WP:WHYN/WP:GNG. A closer look at sources during the WP:BEFORE search seems warranted. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guinness323 and Daranios. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Philimon Peter

AfDs for this article:

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

Soft deleted previously due to lack of in-depth coverage. Still fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Bergamo (entrepreneur)

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

Non-notable entrepreneur. Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Kandy

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

per WP:NACTOR, no sources provide coverage about the actress. The article is also littered with fake references FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article a bit. She at least meets WP:GNG, and probably WP:NCREATIVE, though I have not checked for reviews of all the films she has produced (there is a list in an earlier version of this article, but the current article only names two she received award nominations for in 2022). The sources do provide coverage of her, as suggested by their titles: "Zoom sur la meilleure scénariste de la RDC : Belinda Kikusa Kandi dit « Bellevue », la Femme sage"; "Belinda Kandy dit « Belle Vue », apporte une nouvelle touche dans le cinéma congolais"; "Bellevue KANDY | 50 Femmes qui inspirent"; ). "L'actrice comédienne Belinda Bellevie Officiel est à deux doigts d'instaurer un nouveau record historique dans le cinéma congolais". (Note both her professional and real names used with variations in spelling.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internationality

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

WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH. It's a blend of various topics that can be found separately at the DAB page International. — Anonymous 00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Geography. — Anonymous 00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Concur with the nom. There is nothing here that passes our concept of an article subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Of course the concept of things being international exists, and a disambiguation page is no solution where it obscures, rather than elucidating, the fact that topics on the page express aspects of a single underlying topic. If the article requires further substance to pass muster, add that substance. Sources certainly exist. BD2412 T 03:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an encyclopedia. "The concept of things being international", as you put it, is not an encyclopedic topic, not any more than "the concept of things being the color beige" is. Without context, this is just a word. I have no doubt that thousands of sources use it, but words are not inherently notable in and of themselves. — Anonymous 03:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of Internationality is precisely as encyclopedic as the concept of Beige. In fact, some of the most important topics that we have (and I would count this among them) are high-level conceptual abstractions of fundamental aspects of human life. BD2412 T 03:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you envision this article as being about? Perhaps a colour was a poor example on my part (as it's something distinct and tangible). How about the concept of things existing on Earth? Similarly abstract and far too broad. For this case, we're looking at the internationality of what exactly? Can you provide a reliable source discussing internationality without further context (not in relation to laws, regulations, relations, agreements, or ideologies)? Any source will do (except a dictionary, of course). — Anonymous 04:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no requirement that sources discuss concepts "without further context". That would be like asking to have the article on Construction include sources on construction with no context about things being constructed. BD2412 T 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Construction is a process. I can point at something and say whether or not it is construction. Internationality is much more abstract. I think it's fair to say that abstract concepts require some kind of cohesive, concrete grounding. For instance Knowledge and Awareness are both pretty abstract, but they both represent consistent ideas that remain the same whether they're being discussed from a scientific, philosophical, or religious perspective. Internationality, on the other hand, can mean completely different things depending on the context. An international language is not comparable to an international treaty. They are two completely different things that happen to both be "international". — Anonymous 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think of it, the construction analogy itself could be broken down further. As a word, construction can also be used to refer to the way a text is interpreted or a type of geometric figure. Despite the existence of these other meanings (which it acknowledges itself), our article on the subject makes it clear that we're talking about human beings taking materials and building stuff with them. Defining other meanings is why DAB pages exist. It would be pointless to try to discuss them all in a single article. — Anonymous 05:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I raised Construction as an example of a thing that is inherently tied to contexts, not as an abstraction of the level of Internationality. BD2412 T 05:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the concept of things existing on Earth covered by our article on ontology? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a philosophical concept that is more to the tune of things existing in the universe. My very hypothetical example was based on the idea of having an article about things existing specifically on planet Earth with no further connection to each other. Sure, there are plenty of articles about these things. Perhaps you could make an article with a nice-sounding name like "Terran". However, it would still not be hopelessly broad and not describe a meaningful group. For a slightly more specific example, consider our DAB page for American. The first entry is something of, from, or related to the United States of America, commonly known as the "United States" or "America" So far, no one has created an article for this uselessly wide meaning, and information about more specific meanings can be found on the page. — Anonymous 04:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We also have an article on Globalization, which is basically just internationality taken to its ultimate end. Of course, Internationalization and Cosmopolitanism cover narrower iterations. BD2412 T 05:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really, though? Globalization is a process. As it is used by modern experts, it has a single, consistent meaning (it's arguably much less broad than the other examples I gave). — Anonymous 05:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, try this on for size: Jonathan Rée, Internationality, Radical Philosophy 60, Spring 1992. BD2412 T 05:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. It seems the author defines it as a tangible concept here akin to globalization. If there are additional sources supporting this usage, then I'd support keeping the article, but that would mean getting rid of the content on international languages and sporting events. — Anonymous 05:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you would remove topics for which the concept is clearly applicable. Internationality in sports is functionally an extension of internationality in culture and, to some extent, in government. BD2412 T 17:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See the IP's response. This is one philosopher's idea of a new concept of "internationality", which has nothing to do with other things that happen to be "international". — Anonymous 17:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has misread the work, then. Rée does not claim to be the coiner of "Internationality" and in fact specifically acknowledges its prior coinage. He says that the word was coined but has "lain unused" (as of his writing 33 years ago), and that he seeks "to rehabilitate the word". This is, therefore, not "one specific philosopher's new idea", but an older idea teased out in a philosophical writing. BD2412 T 18:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is where our impasse is coming from. Yes, it was a word before Rée. Yes, many people have used it as a word. However, not all words represent encyclopedic concepts. Rée is using an existing word to describe his new concept. Do these sources before Rée describe the same idea he is describing? And if so, how is this philosophical concept related to sporting events? — Anonymous 18:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all the philosophical bickering in this AfD, we are missing the one thing this subject needs to pass WP:GNG: Are there reliable secondary sources discussing general "internationality" as a concept (as opposed to a specialized definition unique to politics, trade, or whatever)? If so, they aren't cited in the article, which is an unsourced definition followed by a list of examples from different contexts. This is as SYNTH as it gets. If the word can be shown to be commonly used in certain fields then I guess a redirect to the DAB would be acceptable. But not this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was listed at the ARS rescue list without leaving a notice here, in a somewhat (but not overly) non-neutral way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm forced to agree with the other delete votes. I just don't think there's a topic here. Some things have international applications, like sport or law, and we have articles about those, but there's nothing about "internationality" specifically except as a DICDEF. There just don't seem to be any sources here. The one actual presented source by Ree above, seems to be about one specific philosopher's new idea of something which he's calling "internationality". This a) doesn't seem to be notable on its own, and b) even if it were, if you wanted to write an article about this philosopher's idea, you'd start from scratch, because it's a different topic to that of the current state of the WP article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: My deepest thanks to everyone who has participated in this exhausting discussion; if anyone's interested, Transnationality should probably be brought here for extremely similar reasons, but I don't think I have the energy left to do so myself. — Anonymous 05:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the cited rationale is incorrect. Speaking as an originator of the article in 2006, when it was merely International as a primary topic. Since then, International was moved back to a disambiguation. This is well sourced, and far more than a dictionary definition. This does NOT "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." NB: polled by the nominator. Presumably s/he/it polled every contributor. That's a lot of effort for no good reason.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@William Allen Simpson, I'm having a hard time understanding you. To be clear, you were the creator of this article, which your vote should make clear. The number of sources doesn't change the fact that it's a dictionary definition because the sources are describing different things that just happen to be "international". Also, what do you mean by "polled every contributor"? — Anonymous 18:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "'The Delicious One' speaks in new TV spots for Wienerschnitzel". Nation's Restaurant News. October 2, 2000. Archived from the original on February 13, 2011.

[2] ttps://www.eenadu.net/telugu-news/districts/hyderabad-news/529/124066274

[1]

[1]