Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 10	February 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Vierka Berkyová

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

No indication of significance for this Z-list celeb. References are profiles and interbviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 20:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan (month)

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

Pretty much the same thing as Ramadan. We could merge the cited stuff if needed 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:CFORK, there is no reason at all to have two fully-overlapping articles on the identical subject, both being about the month. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one article is about the observance of fasting during the month, the other article is about the month in the Islamic calendar. They arent identical, and while they overlap the ritual of fasting during the month, and the Eid holiday that follows the month, is its own discrete topic. nableezy - 21:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. No need for two articles. ~~The fasting is covered in Ramadan, Fasting during Ramadan, Five Pillars of Islam#Fourth Pillar: Sawm (Fasting) and Fasting in Islam. Yikes!~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each month of any number of calendars like the the months of the Coptic Calendar, Hebrew Calendar, Hindu calendar has its own article. That an independently notable religious observance overlaps with that month doesn’t make it so there are two articles on the same topic. Now Fasting during Ramadan, *that* should be redirected to Ramadan, but it doesn’t make any sense to redirect the month to the religious observance that takes place during that month. That’s like saying Hanukkah should be merged with Kislev. nableezy - 23:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to Hanukkah and Kislev is a strange one indeed, considering they don't last for the same amount of time, and they have different names. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ramadan covers a period of both the Ramadan (month) and Shawwal, see Ramadan#Eid. nableezy - 19:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ramadan lasts for ~30 days worth of time in the month of Ramadan. How much time of Shawwal does it last for? Based on Ramadan#Eid, it seems like as soon as Eid happens, Ramadan stops and Shawwal starts. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The month stops yes, but the religious observance covered in the other article does not. There’s the Eid prayer and in many Muslim majority countries an extended public holiday from 1-3 days. I’m not saying this is exactly analogous to Hanukkah, I’m saying that the month is a topic on its own and the religious observance is another notable topic. nableezy - 04:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though the article could do with a bit of pruning of content about, and better referencing of, Ramadan the observance. This article largely deals with technical information about the month, not the religious event - it's structured with similar section headings and contains similar information to other articles on Islamic months (such as Muharram, Rabi' al-Awwal, Jumada al-Awwal, etc.). I feel this article is best left existing - per the sentiments in WP:TITLECON.

The alternative is for our article on the month of Ramadan to look wildly different from our articles for the other months of the Islamic calendar. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan is a month and there is no reason to keep the two articles separate. The observance stuff can be merged into the main article and the eid section on the main ramadan article is there to let people know when does the month end and it doesn't go into all the details of Eid 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per above, i.e. the same thing as Ramadan, which defines the topic as is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar... 62.38.52.130 (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above, with edits to better differentiate the religious observance and the month. For instance, Ramadan should not lead with "is the ninth month of the Islamic calendar" but rather "is a religious observance named for the ninth month of the Islamic calendar." RowanElder (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. This article itself is pretty useless, filled with almost entirely primary sources and barely any WP:RS. Europe's Last Hope (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:SheryOfficial[reply]
Merge and redirect i see args against it being a cfork. im happy to reconsider when there is less overlapping info between two articles, if folks are interested in saving should attempt to start edits to disambiguate between two. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nableezy, but it will likely be a disambig page. January 1 and New Year's Day and two separate articles, for example. Would anyone here suggest deleting January 1? Also keep in mind the pre-Islamic month of Ramadan predates the advent of Islam. It played an important role in Arabic paganism, which is now extinct. See also Sacred months. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for deletion but opinion is closely divided between "keep" and "merge."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gate count

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

Prodded with the rationale: "WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH of unrelated topics." Deprodded with the edit summary "Tech Term Used". — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. — Anonymous 19:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the current state of the article is pretty bad but I think we can make an article about this term. This paper from NIST discusses the effects of minimizing gate count on hardware efficiency; it appears to be used in quite a bit of quantum computing literature (see here); and this book has a couple sentences about how minimizing gate count "gives a simple estimate of the implementation cost of a reversible circuit" and minimizes "area and power consumption". I don't think this is the most notable topic in the world, but sufficient sourcing does exist. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed the WP: SYNTH. That doesn't require a deletion discussion to go forward with. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perhaps I'll withdraw in that case. My searching was not exhaustive, so I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that this was simply a generic technical term, which isn't something inherently notable. If it's something important and notable within computing (not exactly my area of expertise), then it should indeed be kept. — Anonymous 19:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Louis Tordini

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

Non-notable author article, which somebody claiming to be the subject has been editing Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Things That Hang from Trees, unless that page also goes up for deletion. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The film based off his book received made up in one day awards for an independent film. I see no significant coverage of him, his book, or the film. The only review of the derivative film on Google news is from Slant here. His page (I refuse to call it an article) is close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to rescue. AgusTates (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC) struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civil engineering software

AfDs for this article:

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

This article reads like an essay. There are some citations, but the subjects are sufficiently disjoint that the decision to put all of these topics in one article does not seem appropriate to me. I'm fine with merging some content into different articles, but from an organizational perspective, I think the existence of this article is confusing and makes it harder for readers to find the information they need. The decision to talk about all of these topics in one article seems like a violation of WP: OR to me, because no one source discusses all of these different subjects. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I read the previous AfD before nominating this article. Sourcing is an issue here, but I'm more concerned with the fact the article covers topics that are relatively disjoint but are vaguely related to "civil engineering software". HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald Moon Records

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Looking at discussion in the first AfD, I am not seeing much of a difference. Recreated by an apparent fan/COI. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Maryland. Graywalls (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S M Kayum

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

Highly promotional bio for a Bangladeshi filmmaker whose first film, Antorborti (also nominated for deletion), has not yet been released. At best it's WP:TOOSOON, but either way this filmmaker fails WP:NFILM and WP:NCREATIVE, since none of his other works are significant. The sources are almost entirely unbylined tabloid news from Bangladeshi outlets that have the same WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems with undisclosed paid placement. On top of this, almost none of these sources provide WP:SIGCOV of Kayum. In my search and review I found no qualifying sources for WP:N. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Poetry, and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: See AfD about film. -Mushy Yank. 09:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comitê Nacional de Arte Brasileira

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

None of the mentioned sources are reliable or demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 13:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The creator Wilbr2003 has added false information regarding the organization to multiple articles [1] [2] [3]. They also created articles for some of its supposed members which are also in AfD. Skyshiftertalk 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should explain why the references are unreliable. Several seem to be mainstream news media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are mainstream, and that's clear when you look at the sources. They are blogs or databases. Skyshiftertalk 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per Skyshifter. No independent and reliable sources, just circular quotes. Svartner (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some sources and info to the article. Some info has been removed by the AfD nominator with the summary "this is false information" with no explanation of why it's false. Please have the courtesy to explain, not just make assertions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See here.

I should've explained the entire organization and associated articles are fishy. There isn't a single mention of the organization before 2024. Its website is full of AI articles and the first post is from 2024. There is no indication that the organization existed before 2024 and all sources that mention it are unreliable blogs. Skyshiftertalk 13:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one weird example [4]. "Portal S4" was created on June 21, 2009 [5] and there's a news article supposedly from May 9, 2009, talking about the organization [6]. I don't know what's happening off-wiki regarding the organization but it is at very least strange. Skyshiftertalk 15:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gito Sales

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

All sources are unreliable or don't demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 14:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: no indication of notability.~~ Anktjha (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I do not think that just because a source is in a foreign language, it should be considered unreliable. Since he has a lot of coverage in his own country, he is notable. Many sources are already in the article that seem good such as ops4.com, cnab.art.br, jornaltribuna, jornaldr1.Darkm777 (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkm777: Who said that the problem are the sources being foreign though? I am Brazilian and I know how to analyze Brazilian sources, and all of the websites you menioned are clearly unreliable. Skyshiftertalk 04:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't have this coverage so much that there isn't even an article on pt.wiki. Svartner (talk) 05:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1873 NYU Violets football team

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

I hereby nominate all NYU Violets football season articles, for merger into larger chunks of, say, 20 year periods, merger into the main article of the college team, or outright deletion.

All articles within this class are permastubs, which the Notability guideline advises to avoid unless there are valid reasons to keep. It is unlikely for now that anyone will make a concerted effort to dig up material about 150-year-old college football seasons, so I believe that articles without a realistic and likely scenario of quitting a permastub state should be merged into something larger, or outright deleted.

For articles after 1920, the articles unambiguously fail WP:NSEASONS because since then a higher league was operating in the United States, and the sports SNG does not presume notability for seasons of top-tier collegiate teams, though it does so for competitions. You can argue that before 1920, collegiate football was the highest-tier football league in the United States, which would theoretically allow individual seasons of top-tier teams, but then again the guideline speaks of individual top-tier professional teams, which varsity teams are definitely not.

Several season articles have notability tags hanging for over a year and nobody seems to care; other articles are of the following template:

The [year] NYU Violets football team was an American football team (stop, what? were they actually called "[year] NYU Violets?") that represented New York University as an independent during the [year] college football season. In their [cardinal_number] year under head coach [coach_name], the team compiled a [win-loss-tie] record. Optionally: a random and rather trivial fact about the team during that season

Table of scores, which are the only sources or almost all of the article sources.

While I can't pinpoint to a specific position of WP:NOT that the template violates, this appears like something that a sports database would have, and if the only thing you can do to write up an article is come up with a database sourced only to primary sources (which reports on football matches that just happened very certainly are), chances are the article is pretty bad; in particular there is a requirement for articles to be based on secondary sources, which in this case at best are scores databases and at worst secondary sources are non-existent; so, yeah, not good. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I would like to expand this nomination with the following types of articles:

[year] George Washington Colonials football team (e.g. 1965 George Washington Colonials football team)
[year] Fordham (Rams) football team (e.g. 1883 Fordham football team)
[year] Cincinnati (Bearcats) football team (e.g. 1886 Cincinnati football team)
[year] Case Western Reserve football team (e.g. 1890 Western Reserve football team)

and generally collegiate American football season articles of having the above template. Because this problem appears to encompass a whole category of articles about collegiate American football, I think the topic merits a general discussion on such an article class.

Notified WikiProject Sports and WikiProject American football

Delete all non notable individual season articles. While the NYU Violets are notable, individual football seasons do not inherit notability from the broader topic. It's close to WP:NOTSTATS, as the only purpose of these articles is as a record of the data from the season adding anything to what's already on Sports Reference. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NYU Violets football as an alternitive to deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alvaldi: Redirect 1873, or every season in the history of NYU? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think that if we are redirecting/merging content from articles, I think that we should cover all years (if we don't, what are the criteria of leaving the years out? I can think of none that aren't arbitrary) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish fascism

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

I will repeat the reason for the PROD by user Iamnotanorange~enwiki: "There is no political movement known as Jewish Fascism, which means this article is synthesizing new information by making an analogy between Italian Fascism and rightwing Jewish political movements, all of which have their own pages and do not need to be grouped together into this page. Without a coherent, non-synthesized topic for this article, this article is an Indiscriminate collection of political movements. See Talk page for more info and discussion."

I might add that I proposed to rename the article to "Political spectre in Judaism", but now I realize that wouldn't work. First, the article would have to be fully rewritten anyway, so WP:TNT should be used all the same. And second, we already have Politics of Israel for the full picture, and Far-right politics in Israel for the topic of this article. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Judaism, and Israel. Cambalachero (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little unique in this article, most of the sections are just copied and pasted from Far-right politics in Israel. E.g. Jewish fascism#From the signing of the Oslo Accords to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin (1993–1995) is identical to Far-right politics in Israel#The Oslo Accords and the 1995 assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. There's a place for summary style and excerpting, but – and I see the primary page author is banned – do not do this, we do not need this kind of duplication. Jewish fascism#Allegations of fascism and comparisons to past fascist regimes seems to be new, perhaps that should be merged to the Far-right page or Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. Nom is correct - nothing in the article discusses Judaism whatsoever, it's all about the Israeli government and political groups. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Raven

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

This feels like a WP:TOOSOON situation. There is some stuff out there on the player—nothing that clearly reaches WP:SIGCOV, but maybe enough—but I worry that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Anwegmann (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Indonesia, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mason & Associates

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

Mason & Associates appears to fail GNG, based on the following reasons:

Unable to find any news regarding this ad agency in Australia
Of the four citations:
1. Dot Net Magazine reference is broken as essential information is omitted. Attempts to find this information have not been successful in establishing possible SIGCOV. But at most that might be the only (non-verifiable) coverage.
2. Web Design Index book, is a trivial mention in a generally unrespected catalog of websites. Sufficient to establish that Astron was a client, but not notability (ie NINI & SIGCOV).
3. 2x at American Design Awards 2007 & 2009 are non-notable, (cf List of design awards) and no credible reference has been found to establish this award as noteworthy. The website link & domain is dead.
  - Looking at the annual awards via Archive.org, unable to find either Mason or Toshiedo listed as a semi-annual winner 2007 winter, 2007 summer, 2009 winter, 2009 summer
  - The only alternative is they might have been one of their "monthly winners" which seems to be insufficient to establish any true notability.

But beyond this, there is a mess:

The official website link is for a different company, a business development company called "Mason Associates Group" not "Mason & Associates". On page link was replaced with an archive.org version of how it appeared previously under this company.
Due to the domain name change, and that social media accounts are also dead [7] and [8], it appears this company no longer exists.
James Mason (founder) seems to be all over the place with his company name over the years, including the in-article mentioned Toshiedo which was moved into this article title, but more recently starting a new firm DRAFT:IAMJAMES which is simply a copy-paste of this article after having a move request rejected for WP:NAMECHANGE. That draft was declined due to WP:RS issues.
Looking at the founder's LinkedIn profile suggests this is simply a side gig, as opposed to an actual notable business.

TiggerJay (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Picture Alliance

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

Contains promotional content for the organization and cites no sources. G4† (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. G4† (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - this meets WP:G11 as it's unambiguously promotional about the organisation. It probably meets WP:A7 as well as I don't see a claim to notability being made. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As above. Meets WP:G11. Zero indication of notability (no attempt to elaborate/support notability in text - just pure promotion). As cut/dried as it gets. Guliolopez (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No difference from industry standard blog spam/inspirational space andvice, and not a source (or even a link to the org) to be found. Nate • (chatter) 19:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mood

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

Fails WP:NBAND as there are no in-depth sources describing the career of the band. They had a few chart hits but very little was written about them. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some hits in newspapers, but for the Big Band fad in the late 90s and "In the Mood", nothing about this group. One source in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erzhan Askarov

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

Non-notable athlete. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No good placements nor any results achieved on a high international level. Essentially a hobby part-time practitioner. Geschichte (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Kyrgyzstan. Shellwood (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laugh and Be Merry

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

couldn't find anything to develop any sort of article on this, seems non notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 WAFU Nations Cup

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

According to rsssf.org, there was no tournament in 2015. Mitte27 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Senegal. Mitte27 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
upd: tournament was held in WAFU Zone A among players under 23. That is, it was a different tournament. --Mitte27 (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SepPure Technologies

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

This does not meet notability guidelines for WP:NORG as all sources reviewed are press releases and primary sources closely related to the organization. Only a few give minor coverage and those are insignificant to meet WP:GNG and or WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Singapore, and Canada. Mekomo (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are Press Releases [9] and [10] . Others seems company's announcements. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think editing rather than deleting would make the most sense. The company seems to have coverage on credible outlets like Yahoo Finance, Associated Press, SME Magazine, and more. Aziza553311 (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to gain more comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to confirm WP:CORPDEPTH. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sourcing is all WP:ORGTRIV or affiliated sources, nothing that qualifies for WP:NCORP. The page creator above flagged coverage in Yahoo Finance and the AP, but those are the company's own press releases. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aldona Skirgiełło

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

Subject is a politician who was never elected to any notable office thus failing WP:NPOL. GNG is not satisfied either as there are insufficient sources to satisfy it. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Poland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - the subject is not just a politician, but also a celebrity. She played a star role in documentary series and that produces coverage for her even before the 2025 presidential election. Some examples of articles centered around her before 2025 - (1), (2), (3), (4). To translate a fragment of the 4th article:
Aldona Skirgiełło is becoming increasingly well-known in Poland. She has gathered a large group of fans thanks to the programme ‘Żony Podlasia’ (Wives of Podlasie). The woman has extensive professional experience and a university degree. She currently lives in the countryside, but at one point studied at the University of Cambridge, where she majored in hippology. She also lived in Warsaw for many years, where she worked organising horse races at Służewiec. She was a horse rider and photographer.
Now she is fulfilling herself in the world of show business and is also an influencer. She shows her life in the countryside, and soon her book will hit the shelves. Unfortunately, she also faces online hate. Recently, someone commented on her smile, criticising her crooked teeth. However, the celebrity was not bothered by this. She posted a video on TikTok in which she showed her teeth and emphasised that this kind of smile can turn men on and therefore she has no complexes about it.

The subject also released her biography, and coverage on this claims: Meeting with Aldona Anna Skirgiełło, organised on the occasion of the premiere of her debut book ‘Aldona z Podlasia’. The event attracted a large audience not only from Siemiatycze, but also from Warsaw, Radom, Kutno and even from the vicinity of Toruń, which proves the broad interest in the author's work and personality. This biography has also gathered enough attention to receive reviews.

Now a bit on her coverage as a politician - this article states: She is Aldona Anna Skirgiełło, known as ‘Aldona from Podlasie’, the heroine of a popular TV series, supported by the Samoobrona party.

Or this one: The protagonist of the TV series ‘Wives of Podlasie’ will run in the presidential elections. Aldona Skirgiełło announced her decision at the national congress of the Samoobrona party, of which she has been a member for years. The series ‘Żony Podlasia’ has been broadcast on TTV since March 2024. It tells the story of the everyday lives of women living in the Podlasie region. And one of the most recognisable characters in the series is Aldona Skirgiełło.

Interia, one of the major news websites in Poland, also has a page dedicated to her which summarizes her life, which can be found here.

There is significant coverage and numerous claims of popularity/recognizability. The article should be kept and expanded upon (I can try to do the latter, since I know Polish anyway). Brat Forelli🦊 15:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much more to add than Brat Forelli above, I mostly wrote this to detail her political career (as she is also the first presidential candidate of a former major political party), but she is also the star of a somewhat well-known television series, which could perhaps be ellaborated on. Polish kurd (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly visible signs of significant coverage and recognizability. Kolano • talk 17:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be specific on exactly what you mean by this !vote, the SIGCOV y’all are talking about is yet to become “clearly” for those who can’t read Polish. I don’t see any yet, even after translating the sources Brat Forelli mentioned above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my vote (mine was above after all), but I would like to explain why WP:SIGCOV is met! You mentioned not being able to read Polish - this can be very frustrating in this case, and I fully understand this and agree. Per WP:SIGCOV however, Sources do not have to be available online or written in English, so having Polish sources will do. This guideline also says that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Another part, WP:WHYN, mentions that We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources.

The reason why SIGCOV is met then is because we do have more than trivial mentions, and we actually have articles where the subject is the main topics! To add onto my vote, I would like to link this article by Gazeta Wyborcza, where Skirgiełło is the main subject, and where her political adventures prior to the 2025 presidential elections are explained, her political views, and a controversy that she caused in the 2019 Polish parliamentary election that Wyborcza wrote a separate article on. This article, from Polskie Radio 24, likewise discusses her views and life. Polskie Radio 24, similarly to the articles from my vote, mentions: The politician of Samoobrona gained popularity by participating in the semi-documentary series ‘Żony Podlasia’.

The first Wyborcza article is 30 sentences, another one 35, Polskie Radio is about 20, and her biography by Interia I mentioned before is 30 sentences. There are also other articles from above. I can absolutely create a sufficient article with this, plus these three press agencies can be verified as reliable. Brat Forelli🦊 18:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly does not meet WP:NPOL, but could meet WP:GNG for their television appearances. Checking for coverage in Polish language sources may help determine notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

37th parallel north

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

The only claims for notability (paranormal activity) are completely unsourced. A quick search brought up a book called "Earth Frequency Sacred Sites, Vortexes, Earth Chakras, and Other Transformational Places" by an author that describes herself as "a professional intuitive coach, frequency specialist, energy worker, spiritual advisor, medium, and animal communicator" (not someone who I'd consider a reliable source) and the name "Paranormal Highway" only leads to a very poorly reviewed film.

The only other claim to fame is as the borders of some US states, however that doesn't mean it requires its own wiki page

Unless someone can find a good book or article written on it that I missed, I think deletion is a reasonable response. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and Geography. Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 12:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we have almost every single other parallel right up to the Arctic Ocean, isn't the reasonable response to take the badly sourced rubbish out and leave an article that looks like 38th parallel north? Uncle G (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good point, actually. I am unsure about the notability for articles on such lines. For example I don't really see a reason for 39th parallel north to have it's own page either, but almost every village in Iran has a page IIRC, so maybe geographical topics like this have their own rules for inherent notability.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After quickly checking it seems that WP:NGEO does say that geographical features do actually have inherent notability. I always forget some things have their own notability criteria (schools was one that got me last time). I'll change the article so it looks like 39th parallel north. Then I'm okay with it staying. Edit: It seems that has already been done. Sorry for the AfD.

Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk) 13:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the nomination seems to have been withdrawn. As mentioned on the talk page, "The 37th Parallel: The Secret Truth Behind America's UFO Highway" by Ben Mezrich was published in 2016 by Random House and is very possibly the source of the UFO material recently added by Wiikikiki (diff). This was unreferenced but may have been sourced from the book. This was then removed on account of not being referenced but before any {{cn}} warning. There was also some very "bold" editing which added and removed great chunks. I haven't followed up on this. The book has Google and Amazon previews so additional well-referenced material can be relatively easily added. It would anyway be foolish to delete the article which is part of a set but our deletion procedures do not preclude foolishness. Thincat (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy E. McPherson Jr.

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumi (currency). Most of the claims made about him are false (e.g. the Central Solar Reserve Bank of Accompong does not exist and has not existed). He claims he was a minister of finance yet Accompong is not a sovereign state. Polygnotus (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brake Fail (TV series)

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

Not a notable TV series with insufficient sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shivahari Poudel#Television -Mushy Yank. 12:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Fonseca (footballer, born 1993)

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

~~Unable to locate significant coverage of this individual. Searching turns up stats farms and namesakes, without any detailed information from independent sources.~~ C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:HEY. I added sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, the player has relevant spells with several intermediate Brazilian football clubs such as Joinville EC, SER Caxias and Ypiranga FC. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite recent expansion by Svartner, in my view, most of the additional sources are transfer reports and contract renewal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added more recent transfer sources, but most of them provide a summary of the player's career in addition to all the relevant information to establish WP:GNG. I don't see any gaps missing. Svartner (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner and AGF for notability. Giant Snowman 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing this nomination per the good sources found and added by User:Svartner. @Clariniie: Could you take a further look due to the different state of the article now? 08:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)C 679[reply]
Regardless of whether those describe the person's career or not, transfer sources are considered routine coverage. Social media ones are user-generated and should never be used on Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not user-generated. There is a very limited number of people who have access to a club's Instagram profile. However, they are primary sources and do not contribute to notability. Furthermore, some "transfer sources" are in-depth and some (many) are not, no blanket statement can be made about transfer news - e.g. some sources use the transfer news opportunity to go into detail about the player's career, abilities, personality etc. At this point, anyway, the AFD can be closed in 20 hours after the normal elapsed time. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. Soccerway: stats N. 2. GloboEsport 1: passing mention N. 3. Futebol Interior: routine transfer announcement nearly identical to the club's press release N. 4. GE 2: routine transfer announcement also derived from PR N. 5. Press release from 3, N. 6. Marcou no esporte: reprint of press release, N. 7. GZH: routine interview, little secondary coverage N. 8. GZH: transfer announcement, slightly more material than usual but all of it is shallow stats, not secondary analysis N. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 8. source provides in-depth coverage of the player's entire career. The others complement practically all other remaining information. Excluding information that goes beyond the player's sporting career, there is nothing missing. Svartner (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More complementary sources [11], [12], [13], [14]. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antorborti

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

This unreleased film (apparently filmed in 2022) fails WP:NFILM, which specifies that Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. This movie's coverage is limited to tabloid-style mentions in unbylined articles that trigger the concerns of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Thus, the articles that reference to the film's production are not reliable sources. Until such time as the the production is confirmed by reliable sources or the film is released and given full-length reviews by multiple reliable sources, there is no pass of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. (Note that the promotional bio of the filmmaker by the same page creator is also up for deletion for similar reasons.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: non notable film and sources are unhelpful.~~ Anktjha (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.: And wait for release. Not sure all the coverage is really "not reliable", btw. For example, please note that established tabloids can be used per WP:TABLOID. What makes you say, for example, that, Bangladesh Pratidin cannot be used for verification of uncontroversial facts? even not bylined articles. Also, please note that, even if certain users insist that that section of an informational page can apply to all the subctontinent, using WP:NEWSORGINDIA for other countries than India is something that may be frowned upon by certain users. The lead actor having died last year and this apparently wrapped film being one of his last, I suppose a Redirect and [minimal/simple mention] merge to Ahmed Rubel could also be considered. (with the following source, https://www.alokitobangladesh.com/print-edition/entertainment/171837/আসছে-আহমেদ-রুবেল-অভিনীত-সিনেমা-অন্তর্বর্তী or https://follow-upnews.com/জীবনযাপন/এসএম-কাইয়ুম-এর-পরিচালনা/ -Mushy Yank. 10:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [For the record, full quote of applicable guideline, above in green is: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." (emphasis mine).-Mushy Yank. 10:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)][reply]
MY, I fundamentally disagree that the Akolito Bangladesh story (authored by "Entertainment Reporter") and the Follow-UpNews story (with no byline at all) constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOV necessary to make the production itself notable. They cannot be considered reliable. WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to all South Asian entertainment coverage, in which unbylined coverage has a reasonably high likelihood of being paid/sponsored placement and thus cannot be relied upon per the WP:RSP guideline of Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. And for a film to remain unreleased nearly three years after shooting suggests this film may never see the light of day, making a "draftify" outcome less useful. (And given the potential COI and promotional nature of the page creator's edits, I suspect this would result in a quick return to mainspace and we'd be right back here again.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971"the Akolito Bangladesh story (authored by "Entertainment Reporter") and the Follow-UpNews story (with no byline at all) constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOVnecessary to make the production itself notable.": but that's not at all what I said! I said to use them to verify and source the role in case it is redirected and merged.

As for NEWSORGINDIA, again, I understood why you wish to use it, but doing so has been said to hurt the feelings of certain non-Indian South Asian users (and probably of some Indian users too, or even third-party users). To extend it to all South Asian entertainment might also be seen as expressing a Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Thank you anyway. -Mushy Yank. 20:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

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

References are mostly of brief primary account (interviews), and the rest do not center around her. WP:NEWSORGINDIA might apply to some sources. Overall, the sources do not establish the grounds for a standalone article on this individual yet. X (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. -Mushy Yank. 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She might pass WP:NACTOR for her roles in Sunflower and The Family Man for example, as the bylined presentation of this interview in The Hindustan Times states. A lot of interviews in more or less reliable media outlets are an indication that she could be considered a notable person. If NEWSORGINDIA applies (and how exactly please and to which sources precisely?) to sources on the page, the very general recommendations in that paragraph in an information page do not apply to all sources and should not prevail over the specific notability guideline. So (weak) Keep; Draftify if judged insufficient, please.-Mushy Yank. 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like she passes Wp:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. No objection for redirect. Zuck28 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not seeing evidence that she passes WP:NACTOR. The article says "she played a parallel lead" in Agar Tum Saath Ho, but she appears at the end of the cast list in that article. She's not listed at all in The Family Man or in Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi. I'm not sure how significant her role is in Sunflower - it's not mentioned in the plot summaries, though they may not be accurate. But even if it is a significant role, that would still be only one, not multiple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Her role in several distinguished films substantiates her qualifications as an actress. But this article needs more substantial coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Gaming

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No WP:SIGCOV found. Taabii (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Maharashtra. Taabii (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – none of the sources is reliable and independent and secondary, and there is no significant coverage of the person. The awards he has won are not notable, and there is no actual claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 10:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources like Financial Express, Times of India, and Hindustan Times (excluding the Mother's Day one, which satisfies WP:RSNOI's dogwhistles for advertorials) clearly satisfy GNG. TOI is (unfortunately) one of the best sources in India, and its concern at RSP is because their paid content's labeling is not immediately obvious; the source cited in the article that features Dynamo does not seem to have the paid disclosure and has clear neutral tone and byline, so I believe it is not an advertorial. I also doubt Bonadea's claim that the awards are not notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Aaron Liu, for your thoughtful assessment. I appreciate your detailed breakdown of the sources. Based on previous feedback, I have worked on improving the article by adding more independent and reliable sources and ensuring a neutral tone to address concerns about notability.

I have now included sources such as Inside Sports India, FirstPostz, Sportskeeda, Hindustan Times, an official X post by the Government, and an official post by the PUBG Mobile YouTube channel. These further establish significant coverage of Dynamo Gaming from reputable media outlets and official sources.

Regarding the awards, I have tried to verify their notability and coverage—if you have any recommendations for strengthening this section, I’d be happy to refine it further. Sarthak14331 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you added help notability. Interviews aren't secondary, InsideSports looks sketchy and has very little information and thus no significant coverage, the government is a good source for that claim but does not provide significant coverage, PUBG mobile has a financial interest in promoting itself and thus isn't really secondary, and SportsKeeda is completely user-generated with little editorial credibility. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Aaron Liu. I understand the concerns regarding the nature of the sources, and I appreciate the clarification on what qualifies as significant coverage.

I will look into adding more independent and in-depth sources that provide substantial coverage rather than just passing mentions or interviews. Based on your concerns, I will remove Sportskeeda and InsideSports as they do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. If you have any recommendations for reliable sources that could help establish notability, I’d be grateful for the guidance.

Regarding the government source, while it may not provide significant coverage on its own, it does help verify certain claims. I’ll also review the other sources and see if there are better alternatives that align with Wikipedia’s guidelines on reliable secondary sources.

Thanks again for your time and insights—I’ll work on improving the article accordingly. Sarthak14331 (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Ndeh Tadzong

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

Subject fails NPOL; being a member of a city council does not make one notable by virtue of their position, except they pass GNG or ANYBIO which this subject is not passing anyway. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Africa, and Cameroon. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mountain passes in Turkey

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

Tagged 12 years ago as having no cites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Why_do_wikipedia_lists_need_references? and the Turkish article also lacks cites. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a common problem in these List of mountain passes in... articles - List of mountain passes in Switzerland also has no refs, List of mountain passes of India isn't much better, List of mountain passes of South Africa links to a google map and List of mountain passes in Wyoming (A–J) is simply referenced to the US geological survey --Spacepine (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge table to List of mountain passes#Turkey. This is a navigational list and the respective links are implied to be references, but it does not need a standalone page. Reywas92^Talk 14:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoulie Bah (politician)

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

Subject fails NPOL; being the mayor of Banjul (a city with 31k population (page 9)) does not make him notable. With this interview, this routine piece, this one again, and this ROTM piece, we're left with nothing to satisfy GNG criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Africa. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst city mayors are not automatically passing NPOL, that in itself is not criteria for deletion. Bah has his own entry in Historical Dictionary of The Gambia, and there is clearly more to this than the current article, how he as a sitting mayor was forced into exile. Looking at the coverage following his death, it is evident that he was a notable person at national (and not just local) scene. --Soman (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman There's a difference between a country's standard national biographical dictionary and a country's national historical dictionary. WP:ANYBIO explicitly mentions the former and not the latter. Either way, is this historical dictionary you just mentioned the standard The Gambian historical dictionary? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jojo (Bengali singer)

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

no indication of notability. AgerJoy talk 09:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Research Foundation

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

does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, lacking significant independent coverage. Xrimonciam (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Sheffield school stabbing

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

Firstly, I'd like to point out that this is my first time nominating an article for deletion, so there might be something I've done wrong. Feel free to point it out if so. With regards to the deletion discussion itself, this article seems like a WP:NOTNEWS violation. While the death of anyone is obviously tragic, stabbings are unfortunately a frequent occurrence in the UK, and the fact that one occurred does not mean it should automatically receive an article - things like these are regularly brought to AfD. I don't think there's anything here that suggests it goes above and beyond the brief regular news cycle. The fact that a vigil march, some standard statements and opinions from politicians, flowers being laid and the school creating a memorial for the student happened, doesn't seem to constitute WP:LASTING coverage. The article is tied together with a couple of contemporary news reports, and the coverage of the incident has already mostly gone away after a week and a half. The policies WP:EVENTCRIT, particularly number 4, and WP:NCRIME are also pertinent here. As we know, Wikipedia is based primarily on consensus, so I've brought the article to AfD to have the community determine if the stabbing is notable or not. Billclinton1996 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Billclinton1996 (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because WP:NOTNEWS. It's a delicate balance, but (in the UK at least), the less information that is easily obtainable before a court conviction the better - juries are supposed to be making judgements based on the prosecution case and not what is written on WP or anywhere else. Unlike news articles which tend to be churned away by the time of a trial, WP pages are fairly easily found. In my view, we would be better waiting until any court case has been completed before writing up an account of these events. JMWt (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least for the moment. Totally tragic though this is, the lasting impact has yet to be seen. We are not a newspaper, we have no hurry. We can have an article when we know that an article is appropriate, and what it should say. It is too early. Elemimele (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON to know if this event will meet WP:EVENTCRIT. Not high profile enough to meet WP:NCRIME. I could see an article made for this event in the future if sustained coverage can be demonstrated, but for now there's no rush to create an article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nargiz Absalamova

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

Fails WP:N and WP:1E. The person has not been the subject of any reliable source on her own and has not got significiant coverage in any reliable source. She herself has not been of interest to any reliable source individually. The person only has name mentions or notes about some facts related to her arrest in the sources. There is no other information available to use in the writing of a balanced biography. As you can see from the article, most of the content is facts about the arrest. Participating in an event or being one of the individuals affected by it does not make a person notable. She is simply one of the individuals listed in the context of the case. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hökümətin sözü ilə, gəlib burda məqalə silməyə çalışmağınız sizin özünüz üçün acınacaqlıdır. Bəlkə də, sizi inandırıblar ki, hansısa mistik informasiya müharibəsi ilə məşğul olursunuz özünüzü önəmli hiss etməyiniz üçün. Amma Nərgizin biosun bir daha oxuyun bəlkə də sizinlə yaxın-yaxın yaşda etdiklərinə baxın və bir də özünüzə baxın. Cəsarət, dünyada təqlid edilməyən yeganə şeydi))))

I strongly disagree with the assertion that Nargiz Absalamova fails Wikipedia’s notability criteria (WP:N, WP:1E). The argument that she has only been briefly mentioned in sources without significant independent coverage is misleading and inaccurate. Multiple reputable, independent sources, including international human rights organizations and well-established media outlets, have reported on Nargiz Absalamova. Her case has been documented as part of a larger crackdown on Azerbaijani civil society, demonstrating that she is not just an incidental figure but a recognized political prisoner. The idea that she is “simply one of the individuals listed in a case” ignores the fact that many notable political prisoners worldwide have been recognized in similar circumstances.

WP:1E does not apply to cases of political repression that are part of an ongoing human rights crisis. There are multiple precedents on Wikipedia where political prisoners and persecuted activists—arrested in crackdowns—have notability established through human rights reports and international coverage. If Wikipedia hosts similar biographies of other Azerbaijani political prisoners, removing this one would be inconsistent and unfair.

I also want to highlight concerning patterns in the behavior of the editor opposing this article, which may indicate a conflict of interest (COI) or agenda-driven editing. There have been frequent removals or attempts to undermine content related to Azerbaijani political prisoners, edits that systematically favor the Azerbaijani government’s narrative while dismissing reliable independent sources, and targeted efforts to delete information about human rights abuses in Azerbaijan. Wikipedia’s mission is to ensure neutrality and reliable documentation—it should not be used to erase politically inconvenient subjects at the request of authoritarian regimes.

I encourage all editors to review the reliable sources available before making broad claims about notability. If necessary, I will request an administrator review this editor’s activity for potential bias or government-aligned influence. I am also open to further expanding the article with additional sources to ensure it meets Wikipedia’s standards. It is crucial that Wikipedia remains a platform for factual, independent knowledge and does not become a tool for state propaganda or information suppression. I welcome further discussion, but I urge all editors to act in good faith and according to Wikipedia’s core principles. Kromvell 1968 (talk) 11:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the deletion. Nargiz Absalamova is a notable Azerbaijani journalist whose work and subsequent persecution have received significant international attention, meeting Wikipedia’s notability criteria.

Professional Contributions: As a journalist with Abzas Media, one of Azerbaijan’s few independent outlets, Absalamova has played a key role in reporting on critical issues such as environmental protests and corruption. Her investigative work has provided essential insights into topics often underreported in the region.

International Recognition and Coverage: Absalamova's arrest in December 2023, widely regarded as politically motivated, has been condemned by major international organizations. Amnesty International has highlighted her detention as part of a broader crackdown on dissent in Azerbaijan, and the Committee to Protect Journalists has reported on her case, emphasizing the silencing of independent media voices. Such coverage demonstrates her impact and the broader significance of her work.

Alignment with Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria: According to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, a topic merits an article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Absalamova's work and the international response to her arrest have been documented by reputable organizations and news outlets, affirming her notability. WP:GNG

Furthermore, Wikipedia's notability criteria for journalists state that individuals who are main personalities at notable news sources or have received significant coverage for their work meet the standards for inclusion. Absalamova's role at Abzas Media and the international attention her situation has attracted clearly satisfy these criteria.

Recently, I have observed multiple deletion nominations targeting independent Azerbaijani journalists who have been arrested. This raises concerns about potential politically motivated attempts to remove their presence from public discourse. Wikipedia's mission is to document notable individuals and events objectively, and erasing articles on persecuted journalists undermines that goal. Maintaining Absalamova’s article ensures that Wikipedia remains a comprehensive and balanced resource. Aspectreishauntingeurope (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming a conflict of interest (COI) here? – The Grid (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been nominated for deletion on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, and I haven’t even participated in that discussion. In that discussion, Kromvell 1968 argued in favor of keeping the article, stating that if the person in question is not notable, then why was the article approved on the enwiki? Since this user attempted to manipulate the discussion with such an argument, and because I was genuinely interested in the enwiki community’s opinion on the article’s notability, I proposed its deletion here as well. I have clearly outlined, within the framework of the guidelines, why I believe the subject of the article is not notable. Kromvell 1968 insulted me in the comment he wrote in Azerbaijani above and has openly violated the rules. I am providing a translation of his comment below for you to read:

Trying to come here and delete an article just because the government says so is honestly pathetic—for your own sake. Maybe they’ve convinced you that you’re part of some kind of mystical information war just to make you feel important. But go read Nargiz’s bio again, take a look at what she achieved at an age close to yours, and then take a look at yourself. Courage is the only thing in the world that can’t be imitated.)))

His writing style in the comment and such admiration to the person indicate that the user has an interest in the article. Moreover, this user is making baseless accusations against me simply because I nominated the article for deletion, attempting to discredit me. It is clear that he is highly interested in keeping this article. Kromvell 1968 even attacked to the user who nominated the article for deletion on the azwiki. The contributions of both users involved in this discussion is entirely focused on this article, and in my personal opinion, they are either sockpuppets (the same person) or are closely connected, indicating a serious conflict of interest. This is why I am being attacked in this manner. This is just my opinion, but I think everything is clear. Sura Shukurlu (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In Azerbaijani Wikipedia, a user named "RəqəmsalTaleh" initiated discussions to delete articles about prominent political prisoners, systematically nominating multiple individuals for deletion. When I engaged in discussions with this user, I demonstrated—using Wikipedia’s own rules—that their arguments were factually incorrect and did not align with Wikipedia’s notability guidelines.

As a result, this user was blocked—not arbitrarily, but because they were found to have been paid to write articles on Wikipedia, violating Wikipedia’s conflict of interest (COI) policies. Despite the block, another user (who appears to be closely connected with "RəqəmsalTaleh") has now resumed this effort, nominating Nargiz Absalamova for deletion.

It is evident that this user has not conducted proper research on Absalamova’s case. Her reporting on the Soyudlu protests, as well as other critical topics, has been widely covered within Azerbaijan and internationally. Leading human rights organizations and international media outlets have recognized her work and condemned her politically motivated arrest. These sources clearly establish her notability as an independent journalist persecuted by an authoritarian government.

Given the Azerbaijani government's history of targeting Wikipedia editors and administrators who document human rights violations, I find it crucial to highlight the coordinated nature of these deletion attempts. The goal appears to be the systematic erasure of political prisoners and persecuted journalists from Wikipedia—a blatant attempt at information suppression.

I could provide extensive documentation on how similar smear campaigns have been orchestrated to manipulate public perception and suppress critical voices. Many of the sources this user considers "reliable" are themselves aligned with state-controlled narratives. However, I do not wish to engage in an extended dispute over this user’s motivations.

The objective fact remains:

Nargiz Absalamova is a widely recognized journalist in Azerbaijan.

She has received extensive international coverage from reputable sources.

She is currently jailed by the Azerbaijani government in retaliation for her reporting.

Attempts to delete this article are not based on Wikipedia’s rules but on political interests. Wikipedia should not be used as a tool for authoritarian censorship. Kromvell 1968 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid the user who created the original article on AzWiki was imprisoned on 30 January, his imprisonment was announced on 31st. These profiles then started to nominate the articles the original author created half an hour after the announcement of their imprisonment. Sura is a government troll 188.253.208.251 (talk) 11:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more information and sources. The first source has significant coverage of Absalamova. Other sources individually have less coverage, but it adds up to WP:NBASIC. If this is not kept, it should be Merged to Abzas Media (there are many sources here that are not included in that article, which currently has many sources by Abzas Media). I note that the article Media freedom in Azerbaijan is 10 years out of date, and has no mention of these arrests. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would editors, in general, stop insulting each other. This discussion is not about a country, another Wikipedia, your opinion of the subject or the articles this subject has written but about coverage of this article subject by reliable sources. A source review would be helpful and if you know of mainstream sources that have covered this journalist, her career and her situation, please bring links to them to this discussion. Remember, on the English WIkipedia, we are concerned about writing articles on notable subjects, not "righting great wrongs" for whatever political stance you personally have.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Amnesty International piece is about the individual... The rest deal with journalists (plural) being arrested. This in the Columbia Journalism Review [15] talks about a few that were rounded up. I don't see this person is more notable than other journalists. Could be briefly mentioned in a sentence around the COP 26 meetings, but this journalist isn't notable otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNGN-LD

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

Non-notable LPTV which may well be silent. Only sources are RabbitEars and the FCC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in New York (state)#LPTV stations: as the creator of this article all the way back in 2006, I can assure you this is little more than a remnant article of the far lower, non-GNG-based inclusion standards of the era. Maybe there's something out there that could instead merit a mention somehow at WNGN (FM) (the co-owned radio station), but a history of mostly national services (or more recently, airing nothing but a random .4 carriage of the radio side) does not exactly suggest significant coverage. (What's left of Google's newspaper archive does have two articles in The Daily Gazette mentioning this station, which is more than some other LPTVs, but I don't think they're enough — even if the first article mentions the then-existence of local programming without elaboration.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Bahl

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG as the sources mainly focus on the subject interviews and statements, without providing significant coverage. Majority of cited sources focus on Viraj Bahl company growth (revenue & product launches) rather than his personal notability as an individual. Refs (India.com, TimesNowNews, DNA India) lack depth or are promotional in tone. Coverage in outlets ( Inc42 and ET Retail ) primarily discuss Veeba as a company, not Viraj Bahl individual legacy or influence beyond his role as founder. While his role as a judge on Shark Tank India(2024) adds to his public profile, this is recent and may not yet be supported by independent sourcing to confirm lasting notability failing WP:NBLP and many of the sources here are exactly what WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to watchout for. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Business, Companies, Singapore, and India. NXcrypto Message 04:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Made substantial improvements to the page and added multiple reliable sources that provide significant coverage and meet WP:NBASIC. There is also extensive media coverage in various local languages. Ariz Shaikh (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also cite the sources that would confirm your !vote? CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. If anyone is interested in creating an article about him then they should first try creating something about his company. It's his company that has got more coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CharlesWain Indeed, and the cited references focus more on his company than on him. NXcrypto Message 16:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG and NBASIC with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) in The Economic Times, Financial Times, India Times, and Navbharat Times, as well as an in-depth article in Business Outreach. While the article has a promotional tone, this can be improved with regular editing. Baqi:) (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the WP:SIGCOV? The article from Business Outreach is clearly a paid one. It cannot be considered as a reliable source. NXcrypto Message 16:27, 9 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!} 06:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above comments made in support to keep the article are unconvincing. Subject fails GNG. Agletarang (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. AgerJoy talk 08:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new articles[16][17] are appearing related to his TV work. Orange sticker (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. There is WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources that focus on his personal notability. It also meets the basic criteria of WP:NBLP since the subject is notable for more than one event (again, as evidenced by the reliable sources cited).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nwamaka Okoye

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

This is a lengthy article standing on just a single RS here[18]. The other sources do not show that this entrepreneur meets any notability guidelines. These sources here are interviews[19][20][21][22][23][24]. This[25] is written by the subject of this article. These here[26][27][28][29][30] are statements where the subject received trivial mentions. These are primary sources[31][32] Mekomo (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Proulx

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

I can’t find a single review or any in depth third party coverage to suggest this subject is notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Advertising, Internet, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME. The article is clearly an attempted self-promotion by himself or an associate. He has not achieved the necessary independent media coverage of any of his activities that is necessary for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eloho Oyegwa

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

Sources do not show that this digital marketing and influencer meets any notability guidelines. While the sources are from RS sites the articles themselves are not RS. They are the usual marketing and PR copies having extensive quotes that is clearly interview. Mekomo (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 05:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are clearly interviews and fails WP:INDEPENDENT, thus failing WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and need more significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redraftify. This article was moved to draft space for incubation in October 2024. It was then moved back to article space by an ambitious new user but without sufficient improvement. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Promotional interviews do not make good sources to show notability. Ravensfire (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More Nigerian fluffy articles that don't really show notability. I tend to agree with the several comments above... Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charikol Pukurpar Dakhil Madrasah

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

Tagged for notability by BoyTheKingCanDance. The author added a source defining what a madrasa is and removed the notability tag. Then Hey man im josh moved the article to draft because it needed more sources. The author promptly moved it back to article space without improvement. So we're here.

Of the two sources, one is a directory listing giving the head's name, phone number, and email in a list of 26 madrasas in the sub-district. The other is an encyclopedia article about madrasas in general (it doesn't mention this one). Searches in English and Bengali found no sources that would establish notability.

For what it's worth, the corresponding page was speedily deleted from bn.wikipedia on 19 December 2024 by Ferdous for failing to indicate importance (rules there are a little different from here). Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references to reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to this specific madrasa are provided. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No RS found. Fails N ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverages and fails GNG. AgerJoy talk 08:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. As an aside, it's disappointing that the author hasn't responeded positively to advice. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hav Soknet

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

I can't seem to find anything other than either transfer blurbs, passing references, and databases. Apparently he scored a "beautiful goal" in a recent match, but I can't find anything more than that approaching WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cambodia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note delete:I already added another source, please check. Camboeditor (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 09:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already added another source, please check! Camboeditor (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – One source is not enough. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already added another source, please check! Camboeditor (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Added sources still not enough to support notability, just passing mentions. Procyon117 (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

German-occupied Poland

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

Some of content copied from Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany per WP:CFORK. Absolutiva (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, and Poland. Absolutiva (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate. I originally, way back in 2006, redirected it to Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany. In 2018 Lembit Staan changed that into what I see as a good idea, but badly executed disambig to the original target as well as General Government that over the following few years started slowly growing to the current few sentences. The nom is correct that in the current format this is a pointless CFORK of something. A disambig to the three primary meanings (the two I mentioned and Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) the nom mentioned) will likely be best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Convert to disambig, we clearly have several useful articles to which this title could refer, we don't need another, but it's a good search-term, so it would help our readers to make it point at the potential targets. Elemimele (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Seychelles relations

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

Article primarily based on 3 primary sources from the Israeli government. 2 of these merely confirm no embassies, a third is a factoid that Seychelles allowed Israelis to visit during the pandemic. There appears to be no third party of these relations. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Israel. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The intro focuses on REFERENCES, while calling these sources. References are in an article. For these one does not have to search. AfDs should be focused on SOURCES, which are out there, per the golden NEXIST rule. A quick scan of the internet proves that there are third party sources, for example in Walla and Mako and Channel 13 of Israel. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Reliable coverage is easily discoverable from a cursory web search. This topic is significant enough on its own to warrant an article; it just hasn't been expanded beyond a stub yet. Yue💌 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mint chocolate

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

WP:BEFORE in my assortment of chocolate books turned up nothing or mere mentions. No sigcov in Scholar, neither apparently in Books, TWL, JSTOR, Google, NYT archives. Lot of mentions of Mint chocolate chip, although it isn't an appropriate merge or redirect target. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 03:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Types of chocolate. Problem solved. BD2412 T 03:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a flavoring, like strawberry, coffee, or caramel. The scope of Types of chocolate is different, predominantly around production techniques. That being said, the scope could be redefined. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | contributions) 04:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure but lean towards weak delete. The flavour is clearly ubiquitous in many cultures and geographies, so it seems hard to believe that someone hasn't written a history of the social importance of it. But I'm not seeing anything. On the other hand there are a lot of these kinds of pages, for example Mint chocolate chip, which are apparently also weakly referenced. So I'm not sure. JMWt (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also unsure, but rather than merging to types of chocolate (which is currently very much types rather than flavours, another possible target would be Mint (candy), though again it enlarges the scope of the article, which currently only deals with little white sweets/candies, not big brown bars and mint-thins etc. Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not an easy one to search for - so many ads come up! I have searched for both "Mint chocolate" and "Chocolate Mint", and found a variety of sources and information. Whether it will add up to WP:SIGCOV I am not yet sure. The Tokyo Weekender has an article about how "chocmint" became popular in Japan [33]. (There seems to be a graphic novel series published in Japan called Mint Chocolate, too [34]) A choc-mint drink became a political symbol in Thailand [35] (but is this article just about individual or block mint-flavoured chocolate, or chocolate-coated mint, or does it extend to chocmint as a flavour?). Mashed has an article "Here's Where The Concept Of Mint Chocolate Came From" [36]. One well-known product missing from this WP article is the Girl Scout Cookies#Varieties Thin Mints - I found histories of them here [37] and here [38] (p 110). Chocolate mints on or under the pillow at hotels is described here [39] (not reliable, but gives info that could be searchable). Mathematician Jean Dieudonné promised a chocolate mint to whoever could explain why the social background in which Carl Friedrich Gauss lived led him to 17-sided regular polygons. [40]. Half of boxed chocolate mint sales are in the last 12 weeks of the year. [41] (and that source, Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use, has more info about mint chocolate that I can't see. The National Druggist had a recipe for "cocoa-mint" soda drink in 1897 [42] and Henley's Twentieth Century Book of Recipes, Formulas and Processes (1909) [43] also has one. Built on Chocolate: The Story of the Hershey Chocolate Company [44] has 6 results for "mint chocolate", which I can't see all of, but can see that there's info about Hershey's mint chocolate introduced in 1959 and discontinued in 1969 (which doesn't seem to be in the Hershey article, nor this article). I'll try to find other sources. (Btw, I do appreciate the nom's reference to "my assortment of chocolate books"! ) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity, Indiana

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

Here we go again with the churches, with a twist: GNIS claims this came off a topo, except that in the older topos I can see (which aren't all that old, unfortunately) the church building is there, but it is not marked as such. And the name doesn't appear on the map at all. The church is the only thing here, though the county history says it was predated by a convent a mile west of the church's location (which is gone now and which is another anonymous spot). But there's no mention at all of the a settlement per se. Mangoe (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Geography, and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's to the east at 40°32′28″N 84°50′31″W / 40.541°N 84.842°W / 40.541; -84.842 (Trinity Church) on the 1953 Muncie map with the word "Trinity" right next to the circle, and that's dead on a church symbol for the Holy Trinity Catholic Church (Trinity, Indiana) on the 1960 New Corydon map, even though the name has moved to a cross-roads.
Baker says that this was a village named after the church. There's no Trinity in Jay in any of the gazetteers. As for the references in Jay County, Indiana#Further reading: The Lewis Biographical has the church mentioned ("situated two and a half miles from New Corydon, on section 17") but no village, and the same goes for the Jay History. Nothing in the shipping guides, or post office directories.
I found 1996 Borderline Indiana (ISBN 9780964237131), which looked promising. But it only discusses the church with a "rectory, school, shelter house and playground" on the church grounds. It uses the word "community" but says nothing except stuff about the church and its congregation.
I cannot confirm Baker's claim to a village with anything else. This appears to be a mis-labelling, done some time in the 1950s, for the church that we already have another article about. This article is worse than useless. It's downright misleading.
Uncle G (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G's research. Clearly a case of a map being mis-read, and we already have an article about the church. That article, incidentally, should be re-titled since there is no Trinity, Indiana. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty Bang Bang (airship)

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

A film prop that does not appear to have stand-alone notability. BEFORE does not help much; it is a prop, it existed for a short while, and its history is briefly described in some works about the film (WP:SIGCOV is a major issue here). At best this could be merged to the film it was a prop for (Chitty Chitty Bang Bang). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Transportation, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of its connection to the film, this is a technically important vessel as the first helium-filled airship built outside the US. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley And which source states that, preferably with the qualification of this as "technically important"? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's, which has been in the article from the outset. The sources here (multiple, significant and RS) are more about the airship as aviation than about its film role. Two of the crew are also WP:notable and wrote about this airship in their own autobiographical writings. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, Jane's Pocket Book of Airship Development[45] contains a comprehensive list of airship and this one is included in that, which seems to me to be a passing reference. Orange sticker (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you've not read it? But you've already decided that a publication from Jane's fails WP:RS? It is not a long article on this airship, but it is an article on this airship, as a notable airship, published by just about the most reputable authority on such topics. When did "comprehensive" become a pejorative? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing its reliability just whether or not the subject of this article receives WP:SIGCOV in it - the Google Books search returns 6 mentions throughout the book, including indexes. It doesn't look like an article, just an entry in a table. Orange sticker (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane's is the epitome of indiscriminate collection.. Its books are not lists of notable anything except to the degree which one holds that for instance all warships are notable. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Chitty Chitty Bang Bang#Special_effects_and_production_design where there is plenty of room for an edited-down version of this material. A whole separate article on this prop is hugely WP:UNDUE, unlike the far more famous and written-about titular automobile(s). Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mangoe. I was confused about this because the automobile is likely notable. This is more of a footnote that could be described at the main article or the car article (or both). Archrogue (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you merge an article on an airship to an article on a car? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chitty_Chitty_Bang_Bang#Special_effects_and_production_design as stated above, this seems to only get a passing mention one of its main references and I'm not even confident that supports the statements in the article. Orange sticker (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the appropriately cited parts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the nominator has listed this with their other aircraft deletions, several days after the deletion countdown started, I realise that this was part of a bulk run of fictional aircraft. The nomination also describes it as a 'film prop'.

Are you aware that this was a real airship ? And a technically significant one too, one of the first post-1930s UK airships, and the first non-US airship to be filled with helium rather than hydrogen? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting bit of trivia that for a film prop they made an actual airship, but nonetheless it's still all trivia about a film prop. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...that's not how "film prop" works. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it? Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was not just a "film prop" - was an actual, flying, operational airship. Sufficient coverage for such is, in fact, already in the article, and there are undoutably more offline sources, given the age of the film. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:01, 11 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!} 03:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

further comment Besides not seeing how "they built an actual airship" makes it into something besides a film prop, there is also the problem that, as far as I can tell, it never actually had a name. It's difficult to search this because most web hits seem to depend on our article, but I can't find anything older that gives it a name, and in this interview with one of the guys who built it, he doesn't name it. I also am finding a complete lack of any history of the thing besides its construction and its use in the filming; one source claims it was blown into the trees and destroyed, though I don't know how reliable that account is. At any rate, it wasn't this advanced tour de force of British aviation; it was cobbled together for the film, was underpowered and not entirely controllable, and apparently didn't survive past the end of filming. I supposed one ought to be impressed that they made an actual aircraft rather than faking it with models and sets, but I'm not seeing how this cannot be covered in a reasonably short section of the film's article. Mangoe (talk) 04:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So flight quality is now part of WP:N and a reason for deletion? Where does that leave Piasecki PA-97 Helistat?

I don't understand your logic here where finding a new, additional source now becomes another reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, it's interesting to note that in that video he says, "...in 1973 Anthony Smith, who was the founder of the British Balloon and Airship Club, and who I'd met earlier on with that airship, decided that he wanted to build an airship that worked properly" (emphasis mine) further confirmation that the airship did not have a name and was not fully functioning. Orange sticker (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pony, Indiana

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

Another nothing=placv/post-office. References in the county history are all to literal ponies. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker claims nothing more than a post-office here, in the first place. There's no Pony in Jay in any of the gazetteers. As well as the aforementioned animals in the histories and biographicals, there was a false positive for a pony truss bridge in Jay. An 1896 USPS directory confirms the post office. This was a post office, and we've managed to spin 2 sentences out of Baker's 1 and then prepend a lot of false rubbish. There's zero hope of any expansion here, and the article actually needs half the content taken out to make it approaching correct. Uncle G (talk) 07:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lamplighter Theatre

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

Article about a radio show, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio shows. As always, radio shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them in media and/or books -- but existence is the only notability claim being made here, and the article is referenced entirely to the show's own self-published website about itself, and the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies, rather than any evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 09:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Talk

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

Article about a radio show, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio shows. The attempted notability claim here is that it's "the longest-running computer-related broadcast program on the air", but there's no source shown to verify that, or anything else either -- the only "reference" present in the article at all is the external link to the self-published website of the show's host, but it doesn't contain any content verifying any of this either and is instead just an archive of a handful of radio comedy clips rather than anything related to computers.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy referencing. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Washington. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dave Ross, its founder, as an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution Society

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

Fails GNG (or WP:NCORP, if you believe charities qualify as such). Badbluebus (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Badbluebus (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajendra P. Parajuli

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

Article doesn’t meet criteria for notability. Has promotional tone. Information provided are not supported by sources indicating COI of editor. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Health and fitness, Medicine, Nepal, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clear promo article with COI. Few online profiles cited in article are not enough for notability ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 08:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 09:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails [[WP
Delete Fails WP:Prof as WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Taabii (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bald Truth

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them -- and while this asserts things about the show that could count as notability claims if they were sourced properly, it cites no sources at all besides the show's own self-published website about itself, and says nothing that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TideWise

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

Business does business things. Nothing notable. Refs fail WP:SIRS. Subject fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. AgerJoy talk 09:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Donalds

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG as none of the posts they've held are notable for an article, with most notability appearing to be because she is married to a U.S. Representative, going against the principle of WP:NOTINHERITED. Most references do not provide WP:SIGCOV or are not independent of the subject. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, Education, United States of America, and Florida. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep, due to her rather high profile as an activist. The subject gets quite a few newspapers.com hits. No objection to moving to draft for improvement to a clearly encyclopedic level of coverage. BD2412 T 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Seiter

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

Not a notable media personality. Briefly participated in a reality show and performed two inconsequential publicity stunts covered by celebrity tabloids (EW, etc.). Looks like LGBT media outlets reported on him because one of the stunts involved pursuing a gender transition. Best, Bridget (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Bridget (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. found tons and TONS of sources, but almost all of them were about his death hoax. nothing much about him. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lmaaaao reading about him makes me laugh but yeahhh just an irrelevant troll 171.252.153.224 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Ossai

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

The subject does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guidelines or Biographies of living persons standards. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability.

The article appears to be a self-authored biography, violating Wikipedia's autobiography and Conflict of Interest guidelines. The sources provided are not independent or substantial enough to demonstrate lasting significance.

Per Wikipedia’s policies on notability and verifiability, this article should be deleted unless significant coverage from independent, reliable sources is presented. — bshope (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, lacks independent, significant sources. Likely self-promotional. Brandon (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]