Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 13	February 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Just another Perl hacker

AfDs for this article:

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

Perl#Community already contains the entirety of the notable material here. Everything else is self-published at best or OR at worst. This doesn't warrant more than a single paragraph of material. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Perl#Community – seems like the logical solution to me, but I'm not too invested in this !vote. I see you'd tried that in 2023, leading to this recent RFD, which ultimately led to this nomination. Graham87 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Basin Council

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

it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria due to a lack of significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but as someone who lives in BC and has heard lots of local political discussions, I know the Fraser Basin Council is a notable player in our local environmental scene. They have been cited by the CBC and are noted on our provincial government's website. For what it's worth. Snacks (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable organization as per WP:ORGSIG. As an ATD the organization and one source could be viable (content) at Fraser Plateau and Basin complex. However, this article has only one source so does currently not pass GNG or WP:GEONATURAL so needs additional sources for notability. The same applies to Interior Plateau. There is no article under the larger Northern Plateaus province to which all of these could be merged (or created and merged) so what is left but to delete. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't have enough reliable sources. Darkm777 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mike Smith (guitarist)

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

Bit of a weird one. I reverted vandalism on this the other day and only just now actually read it. A WP:BEFORE search turns up very little, other than the "Blabbemouth" article. On the Limp Bizkit article, the subject of this article is basically just a footnote. The problems with the sources were noted 14 years ago and have not been fixed. While not libelous, the tone of the article reads as critical to me, which was further cause for concern given the sources. I'd say "Blabbermouth" is not WP:RS, another source is WP:DISCOGS. Given the fact that this BLP article has been abandoned without verification for over a decade, I'd say it's best to cut it loose. Kylemahar902 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Blabbermouth is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources with the caveat that it shouldn't be used for anything controversial in a BLP, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say leave it up. He wrote an entire album with Limp Bizkit (Results May Vary), has played shows with LB back in the day, etc. Wes Borland even plays some songs from Results May Vary on the most recent tours(Behind blue eyes, eat you alive, etc.). He's not a "main character" persay, but it's unfair to pretend the man doesn't exist you know? Slayerbizkit (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - In addition to the two Blabbermouth articles already cited, I found one more at [1], and he has another reliable source from Louder at [2]. As a member of two notable bands (Limp Bizkit and Snot) he satisfies criterion #6 at WP:NMUSIC, though his notability outside those two bands is mostly non-existent. Therefore, if the article is kept it should pared back to verifiable info and his various other activities could be discarded as non-notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Governor General's Medals in Architecture

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

Improperly sourced and badly constructed list at an incorrect title.
This isn't actually a list of medals, as the title implies -- there's actually only one medal, and this is a list of firms that were recipients of it for various architecture projects. But it's also based entirely on primary sources with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the award announcements shown at all. And while some (not all) of the buildings in the "project name" column do have articles, none of them have actually been wikilinked to those articles here -- and very few of the firms or individual architects listed in the "architect" column have articles at all, even though they were the recipients of the award and thus the core reason for any list of the award recipients.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with some expertise in the architecture domain is willing to tackle cleaning it up to a keepable standard, but a list of unlinked names isn't the kind of thing we should be keeping without proper reliable sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Awards, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 23:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Hudson

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

WP:BLP of a "scientist, inventor, serial entrepreneur, and musician", not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for any of those things. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as the self-published websites of companies and organizations that he's been directly affiliated with, and his musical career being "referenced" entirely to Bandcamp and YouTube, rather than GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about any of it.
The only proper media footnotes present at all are a Toronto Star article that briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else, and one article in The Hill that tangentially verifies a stray fact about a piece of legislation without ever mentioning Darryl Hudson's name at all in conjunction with it, neither of which are support for notability either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced a hell of a lot better than this. Also, just for the record, the only two inbound links to this page from any other Wikipedia article are both expecting a basketball player from New Zealand, not a magic mushroom entrepreneur. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Science, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article definitely has problems (I kinda think the music section could almost be cut down to a sentence or two about how he enjoys music and self-publishes in his personal life?) but I did review some non-primary sources related to his career: He has two quotes and a decent blurb in the aforementioned Star article[1] and another blurb in a Toronto Sun article[2]. There's also coverage of him in cannabis or psychedelic specific(I think?) news websites [3][4]. I found an archived version of the Senate testimony source[6], which includes a paragraph about him. All of these seem independent, with mixed levels of sigcov and also mixed levels of reliability.

Taken altogether I think the sources still fall short of GNG and subject does not meet WP:BASIC, but I could be persuaded otherwise if other sigcov is found. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my initial reaction can't be repeated in polite company, but let's just say that he lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Bourne

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:AUTOBIO (see creator's username) of a journalist and producer not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all.
You don't make a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia by citing sources where he's the bylined author or interviewed speaker of coverage about other things, you make a journalist notable enough for a Wikipedia article by citing sources where he's the subject of third-party analytical content being written or spoken by other people.
But there's none of the required kind of sourcing here, the article says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to hand him a presumption of notability without GNG-worthy sourcing for it, and our conflict of interest rules don't allow him to start his own article about himself anyway. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Probably an WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source analysis for this one is tough, b/c the results get clogged up with articles he has written but aren't about him. Also, many of the in-depth pieces about him are from outlets/institutions he is/was affiliated with (ex: [1], [2]) so I'm not sure we can really call them independent... The only independent-seeming GNG I could find is this detailed magazine(?) interview [3]. Due to aforementioned difficulty of WP:BEFORE + my lack of newspapers.com access, it's possible I'm missing something(s) but based on my searching + what's already in the article, my vote is delete. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who the 'Ell Is Tauriel?

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

I do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This article should be deleted or merged into Tauriel. TheSwamphen (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jassim Yaqoob

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT for not having WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS and WP:RS whereby the sources talk about the subject in depth and length for verification. Announcements of competitions and results are considered routine sports reports and can not be used to contribute to notability guidelines requirements. Cassiopeia talk 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Iraq. Cassiopeia talk 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy lonely discography

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

Duplicate article of Destroy Lonely discography, which was merged last year by Klbrain. Article needs to be moved to the correctly capitalized title if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:36, 14 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as an alternative deletion, to Destroy Lonely; I don't think that, 8 months on, their discography has expanded enough to warrant a separatete page, particularly if the unreferenced Self-released material is deleted. Klbrain (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Klbrain. मल्ल (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Garzón

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

Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. There is no notability regarding Garzón and it does not meet WP:N. There are not enough sources about him, and he has not done a single year of car racing yet as he is only 15 years old. Plus it doesn't even meet WP:MOTORSPORT since again, he hasn't done a single year of car racing. It is simply WP:TOOSOON. SteeledDock541 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Colombia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nomination. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hibiki Goto

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

Goto has only played two Emperor's Cup games and last played in 2022, so unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubasa Adachi

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

Played 18 times in the J3 League, has not played since 2018, unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shogo Hayashi

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

Has played a total of 572 minutes (https://int.soccerway.com/players/shogo-hayashi/436981/) and has not played since 2018, unfortunately failing GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kloor

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

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, Science, Indiana, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Making an accusation that the creator of the article, MichaelQSchmidt, a Wikipedia Administrator with over 61,000 non-automated edits, is an undisclosed paid editor is a pretty bold statement. Aside from that, the subject of the article meets WP:CREATIVE #3 for his role as producer, co-director, and writer of Quantum Quest: A Cassini Space Odyssey and possibly for Earth: Final Conflict but I haven't been able to independently verify his involvement in that series (but I haven't tried very hard). RecycledPixels (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The tone is promotional, but if one is going to claim paid advertising, then one needs to prove it. The issue is whether the tone can be fixed by ordinary editing. That's all. Bearian (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. L. Santhosh

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of XYZ 250706 who will fill in their reasoning momentarily. They're having tech issues. Noting also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B.L. Santhosh in addition to the one the script picks up. Star Mississippi 19:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Karnataka. Star Mississippi 19:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Becoming the president/general secretary of a political party’s state or national unit does not inherently confer notability. The subject fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage is done here, no interesting and important topic other than serving at various party posts is added and hence the article is not presentable to the readers and hence should be deleted. User:XYZ 250706 (User talk:XYZ 250706) 19:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*noting here I added the word nomination to make this more clear. Star Mississippi 19:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orlytsia River

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

WP:GEONATURAL, all information with maps 『Shiro Neko』^Обг. 18:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was clearly translated from the Ukrainian so sourcing isn't great, but searching річки Уборті in Google Books brings up lots of mentions in books which can be used to expand the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it might be not as notable for a separate article, but how about including it into the Ubort article instead of deleting it alltogether? Pusf.smbd (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎ as malformed. No article has existed at B.L. Santhosh since a 2020 AfD discussion; the intended nomination and discussion, for B. L. Santhosh, continues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. L. Santhosh (2nd nomination). (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B.L. Santhosh

AfDs for this article:

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

Becoming the president/general secretary of a political party’s state or national unit does not inherently confer notability. The subject fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. No significant coverage is done here and hence the article is not presentable to the readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XYZ 250706 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the nominator mean B. L. Santhosh (note the space)? That article doesn't have the Afd tag on it. Billclinton1996 (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has since been reposted without the redlink. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/B._L._Santhosh_(2nd_nomination). Namelessposter (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eight Schools Association

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

The ESA is an association of wealthy college-preparatory boarding schools in the Northeastern United States. I am concerned that this page does not meet WP:GNG because there is minimal direct coverage from outside, reliable sources, based on a review of Google News, Google Scholar, and the Wikipedia Library (inc. EBSCO and JSTOR). In addition, the material in the article (based primarily on sources and data from the member schools) suggests that the ESA has not been very active since 2013. Several members of the association attempted to start an athletics league, which used to have the Wikipedia page Six Schools League. The SSL page was deleted in July 2024 via WP:PROD, as there was no evidence that the league ever began play. I don't think there was any substantive discussion about the deletion then.

As far as I can tell, the only meaningful discussion of the ESA by an outside source appears to be a 2018 book about campus planning by architect and Princeton administrator Robert Spencer Barnett with photos of the ESA campuses. In his preface, the author states that "limiting the scope [of the book] to this group may seem overly restrictive," but "these schools embody most of the opportunities and challenges that exist at peer institutions."

Other than that, specific descriptions of the ESA in outside sources have generally been limited to offhand mentions in articles about member schools.

A 2015 Associated Press article about St. Paul's School (New Hampshire) that briefly refers to the ESA "a sort of Ivy League for prep schools."
A 2019 Quadrant Magazine article by William Rubinstein noting that Edward Said attended Mount Hermon, an ESA member. Rubinstein says that the ESA is "the American equivalent of the Clarendon schools including Eton and Harrow," without elaboration.
A 2011 Fast Company article about member school Choate, which states that the ESA is "an alliance of posh - and highly competitive - New England prep schools."
A 2007 article in Education Week saying that the Concord Review student journal is trying to get the ESA schools to subsidize the journal's continued production, and calling the ESA "a group of elite private schools in New England."

In addition, on February 6, I left a notability tag and a message on the article's talk page requesting help finding additional sources, with no response. Namelessposter (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools#Other school or university articles-related deletion discussions. Namelessposter (talk) 18:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Namelessposter (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, United States of America, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DAV foundation

AfDs for this article:

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

Little evidence of notability. One feature article that isn't a dead link. This is what's left after removing a pile of cryptocurrency sources, which aren't RSes usable for WP:NCORP. Previous AFD in 2018 was "no consensus", but a WP:BEFORE just now showed zero RS coverage I could find outside the Vice article. I'd be fine with being shown wrong, but it would need to be shown - David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Business, and Switzerland. David Gerard (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaya Keller

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

Reason: WP:COI: The author, user:Neriah, is the son of Chaya Keller. Please see here (Image author and uploader) and here.
Neriah does not have a WP:PMR permission, but moved the article without leaving a redirect.
WP:NACADEMIC: Neriah raised criteria 1,2: Krill Prize and a solution of the Ringel's problem.
There is no secondary international source, like the CNN or The New York Times, for example.
The solution of Ringel's problem was made with additional four colleagues. There is no Wikipedia article about this problem.
Chaya Keller is an associate professor, not a professor. Loeweopta (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Mathematics, Computing, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Loeweopta: ~~Are you arguing that Neriah is related to this professor just because Neriah took her picture? This doesn't really follow.~~ Neriah was able to suppress the redirect because of their global rollback permission. International sources are not required to satisfy notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last name is identical. It is written on the second link, in Hebrew. Loeweopta (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vallabhaneni Maheedhar

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources provided, obviously self-promotion, previously soft-deleted at AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expected this could be deleted as a BLP without any valid source. The source: "V. V. Rajendra Kumar" appears to be a personal reference, and not something verifiable. However facts in this should be verifiable, and there are claims of importance. However I cannot find such sources online, perhaps because of not being in English. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Telugu name "వల్లభనేని మహీధర్" does not find substantial content, but there are mentions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was already some dispute over whether an article that has been soft-deleted qualifies for BLPPROD. Personally I think it does, but at this point it seemed simpler to just proceed to AfD as requested. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. No WP:REL, currently written as Advertising, and BLP for relatively unknown person Asteramellus (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– I checked the 1996 Nandi Awards winners and nominees list, and the subject's name does not appear. Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. EmilyR34 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Revord

AfDs for this article:

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

So this is where it stands. We've had an article created in open contempt of proper processes (at Raegan Revord (Actress)), moved over this salting per Talk:Raegan Revord/Archive 3#Requested move 19 December 2024 conditional on what is now Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raegan Revord (2nd nomination). But then that AfD got sidetracked by other events and ended without a result. Now that things have settled down a bit hopefully we can have a proper evaluation of what happened. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a Deletion review of the 2nd nomination. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is absolutely ridiculous. The fact is that this article has been in draft for years without reason, but has been repeatedly declined by over-zealous article reviewers. Nominating this again is a blatant abuse of the process and a waste of everyone's time. This is disruptive behaviour. Marbe166 (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The blatant abuse of process was the other away around, when this article was created with an incorrectly capitalized title evading a salting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To all above commenters: I'm going to suggest that while there were problematic things done along the way with regard to this article, debate over all who and which they were does not serve the purpose of an AfD discussion, which is generally to cover whether the subject of the article (and, to a lesser degree, the current state of the article) meet whatever standards we hold for a Wikipedia article. The previous discussion was awkwardly brought to a non-resolution closure. Returning to discussion of such things as notability will like serve the project better. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 2 clearly significant roles in Young Sheldon and Georgie & Mandie, obviously notable productions, have her meet WP: NACTOR -Mushy Yank. 19:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that the single episode appearance in G&M was the same role as from YS. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the same character, but, If I may be pedantic, technically, it's not the same role (as these are 2 different productions). And that guest role (2 episodes?) received significant coverage. But if you or other users think it"s better to redirect to YS#cast, not opposed, though (opposed to outright deletion). I haven't seen Wish Upon and cannot say if her role is signifiant. If you know, let us know. Thanks. PS-She might meet GNG too btw. -Mushy Yank. 20:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me what policy or guideline the nominator invokes to delete this article. -Mushy Yank. 20:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The same ones that were invoked in the previous nominations, which have been improperly denied consideration. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discusssions have been closed. Opening another discussion because you don't like the outcome, without any new arguments, is disruptive. There have been multiple arguments in the previous discussions showing the notability of the subject of the article. Marbe166 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you very much. The previous nomination (I see that you were the nominator too) mentioned "doubtful notability". Let's check the first too, as you are kindly inviting us to do so. "Actress who fails WP:GNG according to sourcing on page and to my Google search for articles from reliable sources with significant coverage. She also fails WP:NACTOR due to a single lead role. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON." (another nom)? Is that still your concern, then? (I will note that NACTOR is not about lead roles only, but significant roles) You don't think that the tons of interviews of her and coverage about the character/2 roles is significant enough (Variety, Screen Rant, international media)? -Mushy Yank. 20:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the the previous Afds. There is a clear consensus this topic in notable and merits an article. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No previous AfD showed that "clear consensus". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the 2nd AfD had been given a proper closure, it certainly would have. My comment here refers to the comments made by myself and other keep votes at that Afd discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- fails WP:NACTOR due to only a single notable role. Despite argumentation here, playing the same character again in another production is generally described as reprising a role, not playing a second one. No coverage indicating that Wish Upon was a significant role has been offered. Arguments that people have to just stop looking at deletion because of all that has come before seem to ignore what has actually come before; the first AfD was closed as Delete, the second one was ultimately closed without a keep or delete ruling, and every time the draft was submitted, it was turned down. I do support draftifying as it is certainly not unlikely that the subject will have another role or source of notability soon, but it's been waited for for years now. And I would have no objection to a redirect to Young Sheldon and a somewhat heftier bit of coverage for the subject there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a clear-cut case and even if there develops consensus for this, I would argue Revord is a good candidate for making an exception to the rule. She's so well known and notable not having an article on her would be a detriment to the encyclopedia. CapnZapp (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One high-profile role in a long-running series is sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. An extreme example of a single role being enough is Renée Jeanne Falconetti. Although she was notable in any case, her single performance in the film The Passion of Joan of Arc would have been enough to merit an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I trust you will alert each and every participant of the last discussion that you have opened an AfD on this article, User:Pppery. If only to make sure nobody accuses you of asking until you get the answer you want. The reason I'm suggesting this is because this is the third time an AfD has been opened or reopened for this article and that doesn't include a failed attempt to reopen one, all within the span of six weeks. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do so if you wish, but I don't see the need - this is clearly getting enough participation as it stands. My motivation here is not the get the answer I want - it's to get an answer - I was not the one who brought the January 1 keep close to the first DRV, and I would have accepted that close. But the January 18 procedural close is not an answer, so here I had to go.

If this is closed substantively as keep or no consensus then I will drop this, but the reason this has gone on for six weeks is because people kept meddling with proper process - by creating an article with an unnecessarily disambiguated title evading a salting, by doing a keep closure that was overturned at DRV, by doing the improper swap - none of that is my fault and it's kept us from coming to an answer at all and mandated this mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had the opportunity to make that argument during the Deletion review, edit: and you did, so the matter was handled there. Marbe166 (talk) 01:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform field theory

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

Article only has 1 source that is mis-attributed and with an incorrect title; the relevant author that should be S. Butterworth, and in the source "Uniform theory" is in quotation marks. The page and the reference suggest that there should be an equation, but no equation is provided in either.

I found another much more detailed paper by S. Butterworth that uses the phrase "Uniform field theory" ^[1], however it looks like he is using in an informal manner to refer to the assumption he made to help with his derivation rather than it being an actual theory. As for the actual equations he produces, the physics is going a bit above my head, but I think relevant information belongs in Inductance if it is not already there.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions.User:Giuliotf 18:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF, although a selective merge is appropriate. Bearian (talk) 05:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813)

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

This article doesn't provide evidence of a formal declaration of war between Portugal and Algiers, nor does the peace treaty describe an end to the supposed war. Instead, this article only describes a few skirmishes between the two. Additionally, user Saguescabe gives explicit reasons in the talk page that "coincidentally" no one answered or responded to since April 2024.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced. The idea that wars need a "formal declaration of war" doesn't hold much water. M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a formal declaration of war is necessary to make it clear. But instead we are left with an arbitrary start and end date. There were already other skirmishes before 1790, and the result is misleadingly labeled as an "Algerian victory".

If these skirmishes are to be mentioned, they should be placed in the article "Barbary–Portuguese conflicts". Kolno (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undeclared war says otherwise. If you want to challenge the result, then you need to do it in the article's talk page. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What about the start and end dates being arbitrary? Without context there is no point for the article to stand on. Kolno (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Algeria, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barbary–Portuguese conflicts. A quick look at the sources does not use "war" and certainly not "Portuguese–Algerian War", so this title is inappropriate original research deserving of a WP:TROUT. It's not clear to me that naval battles in 1796 should be tied to the capture of a trade ship in 1810 like this. The main source describes "Algerian-Portuguese relations during the Ottoman period", but not an ongoing or specific war between these dates, but rather a series of confrontations. I think Barbary–Portuguese conflicts would be the best place to include this information. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This reliable source mentions the1790-1793 war between Portugal and the Regency of Algiers. M.Bitton (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single phrase without context doesn't prove anything. Kolno (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It proves that the claim that the sources does not use "war" is not quite correct. M.Bitton (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather useless, as the source says the war was 1790-1793, yet this article has zero content about this time period except that a truce was reached in 1793, and the rest of the article was events following that. Comparing that one line to this article is a non sequitur. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. Roger Denson

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

No reliable sources with any depth of coverage about' the subject, just sources either authored by the subject or mentioning them. Creator of article appears to have unacknowledged WP:COI as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Journalism, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources. Most sources are mentions or primary.Darkm777 (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find things written by him, but anything about him is not reliably independent. The article is about his work, is very promotional, and is a clear conflict of interest. He began editing with User:G._Roger_Denson but was given a warning. He completed the article using this IP, which has only edited this article: Special:Contributions/65.88.88.70. In addition to deletion, it may be necessary to block the IP due to COI. I fear this could come back with minor differences in an attempt to get it through. Lamona (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Che Sha

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

I doubt this letter is a notable topic on its own. It is already mentioned in Udmurt alphabets. This article contains no relevant sourced content to be merged into Udmurt alphabets. Janhrach (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Janhrach (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SMART CASH

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

Utterly non-notable book written by page author (self-disclosed at Talk:Ahmed Khalfan). Fram (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Economics. Fram (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A publishing license for this book is available if you would like to see it. Ahmedkkhalfan (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of independent coverage. (Couldn't this have been a WP:CSD#G11?) Schazjmd (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a licensed and published book. Ahmedkkhalfan (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't notable. There is no independent significant coverage of it. Schazjmd (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Define significant please. I have an article for it covered in all local media. Ahmedkkhalfan (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmedkkhalfan: Two pieces of independent, reliable coverage is generally enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by reliable? Ahmedkkhalfan (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

News, journals, academic books, magazines sometimes. On a side note, is this book published, and does it have an ISBN? ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly non-notable? Why the attitude? It’s not a personal matter. What exactly is your issue? Ahmedkkhalfan (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a personal issue with me, I’d like to know how we can fix this. Would you like to take this offline? Ahmedkkhalfan (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahmedkkhalfan, please remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the NBOOK criteria of two pieces of coverage, can't find anything online other than the author's social media. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC) edited 17:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full disclosure: I have just blocked the account that created this article. While there are a handful of non-COI edits from back in December, much of his edit history has been controversial - primarily COI editing. His assumption of WP:BADFAITH of ARandomName123 did not help either.

That aside, this book fails WP:NBOOK pretty solidly. There's nothing out there for this book - if we had a speedy nomination for books, then this would certainly qualify. Now, since the author is likely to read this - this is not a statement about the quality of the book. The concern here is that the book has yet to receive any sort of coverage in independent, reliable sources like newspaper articles or the other types of sources mentioned by ARandomName123. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear things up, I'm pretty sure the comments from Ahmedkkhalf (17:15 and 17:16 comments) were directed at Fram or Schazjmd. I made my comments shortly after. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - this is literally promotional in my opinion. Limmidy (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of knitters in literature

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

WP:NLIST doesn't have the clearest criteria and lists usually seem to end up kept at AfD, but this particular one seems trivial enough to test usual convention. I don't think there are enough major literary characters specifically known for knitting to warrant the existence of this list. — Anonymous 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. — Anonymous 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An interesting list. Those of us who had required reading in school of A Tale of Two Cities remember Madame DeFarge knitting and knitting...and then knitting some more. The Knitting navbox at the bottom is helpful. — Maile (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if somehow notable (doubtful, and the article's 0 sources do not go any way to proving that) nothing here is salvageable. Knitting is not defining for any of these anyway, and almost all are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the broader topic of knitting in literature would plausibly be notable — a quick search found quite a few sources that discuss it as a literary theme (e.g. [3] [4] [5]). But WP:NLIST would require sources that discuss "characters who knit" as a group or set, and I'm not really seeing any evidence of that. There are sources that use specific characters/texts to analyse how knitting features in literature, but none that describe "knitters" as a defined group. And I agree with PARAKANYAA that there's really nothing salvageable here, this is just an unexplained collection of characters who happen to be described knitting. MCE89 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~possibly~~ merge to Knitting. This is both fun and obscure, but as obscure does not mean not notable: @An anonymous username, not my real name: Was the opinion that this topic is trivial and I don't think there are enough major literary characters double-checked with the WP:BEFORE search which is required before a deletion nomination? Looking at the sources brought up MCE89, I cannot access the first one, but the other two to me seem to cover "knitters in literature" as a group at least as much as "knitting in literature", both having (female) knitters already in the title. The book Sock by a reputable publisher likewise covers knitters in literature as a group starting p. 99. So I think these establish the minimum for notability and WP:NLIST. For other sources like Victorian Needlework and Cult Media, Fandom, and Textiles knitting may be in the forefront, but they still talk about various knitters, and showcase that them being knitters may not be their central trait, but has a specific relevance for each character.

Now, granted, a clear inclusion critereon is not defined so far, but that's a problem that can be solved on the talk page is therefore no grounds for deletion. I would suggest to use secondary sources, both those listed and others, and then only keep those characters where secondary sources talk about them knitting being a characteristic. If this should in the end lead to a short list, it can be merged to Knitting. If someone wants to reorient this article to cover the knitters in literature embedded in a Knitting in literature article, I have no objections. But again that would be no grounds to delete everything first. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are good, but I still would argue that they discuss Knitting in literature more than knitters in literature. Under different circumstances, perhaps a merge would be viable, but the target doesn't exist plus have you seen the page? There isn't really anything salvageable. — Anonymous 18:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: That's a new argument as compared to the nomination. And indeed the article currently looks pretty bad. But seeing that some entries we have now are treated in more detail in the found relevant secondary sources, I think it would still be good to keep as a starting point to the improvements I've described above. Thanks for acknowledging my first small steps in that direction. Also see the discussion on a prose version below. Daranios (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have to agree with a comment above: I think there's room for discussion of knitting as a trope, but listing all the individual knitters is into WP:NOTTVTROPES territory. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In its current state, this is just a pure collection of WP:RAWDATA absent any meaningful context or analysis. That does not an article make. It does not even make for the beginnings of an article. The editors who say that there is nothing to salvage here is correct—whether the topic is theoretically notable doesn't really enter into it. This is rather a textbook example of violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDATABASE, which says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As such, WP:DELREASON#14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia—applies. Analysis, not examples, is what makes an encyclopedic article (examples can support the analysis, but can never replace it). It seems likely that a Knitting in literature/Knitting in culture/Knitting in fiction article (or whatever title is most suitable) would be appropriate, but there is nothing at the page presently under discussion that would be of any use whatsoever for that. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Knitting or ideally a "Knitting in X" article as @TompaDompa: mentioned. I was initially planning on !voting weak delete given the only reasonably non-self published material covering this I could find was this from The Believer (magazine) and this from the Port Jefferson Library, but after reading over @Daranios:'s reply, I'll support keeping it on the site in some form, but I don't think there's grounds for keeping the standalone list on the site, as Tompa put it. --PixDeVl ~~yell~~ talk to me! 00:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PixDeVl, out of curiosity, what content would you recommend merging? The list is extremely poorly formatted with copious misuse of external links, and I don't think its material is usable anywhere on Wikipedia in its current state. An article being messy is not a reason to delete it, but it is very much a reason to not merge its content. — Anonymous 01:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name: Thinking over, really it's more a merge of concept then info, since unless more sources can be found regarding those characters specifically(possible!), the only good sources I've seen are the Believer and Port Jeff ones I linked above(neither of which are used in the list being discussed), which could be used to make a small section on knitting in culture with examples on the Knitting article, IMO. I do think finding enough sources for Knitting in culture would be best overall. PixDeVl ~~yell~~ talk to me! 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources found so far, I think only this: An Incomplete Survey of Fictional Knitters could be used to justify this article's existence. However, the broader concept of knitting in literature has received some scholarly attention (e.g. "knit lit" about characters who join knitting circles) so I would support this list being included in a separate article such as Knitting in fiction, Knitting in culture, etc. Astaire (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Knitting was so common back then, of course some characters would do it. All the references I click on are dead links, so I can't see if this was a significant trait or just a passing mention. Are these major characters that have things written about their knitting at times in the books they are in? Dream Focus 06:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Would you perhaps like to check out the sources listed above to answer your question? Daranios (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LISTN, "knitting in literature" may be a notable topic, but this seems indiscriminate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the topic is interesting, I don't see enough encyclopedic value. Not opposing any chances of a merge. Azuredivay (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator: I'm less opposed to a merge now that some basic improvements have been made; the content is now at least viable to remain on Wikipedia, but I still question the need for a standalone article. — Anonymous 13:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Knitting as a concept in fiction may be notable, but characters knitting seems to be less so. As it stands, this list doesn't meet notability guidelines for its given topic, and there's no content worth preserving, meaning a move wouldn't be viable either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extreme case of poorly written proof for WP:NOTTVTROPES. Badly formatted, badly referenced, not encyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep and rename since WP:TNT has occurred and article has been seemingly completely rewritten. It should be renamed accordingly as it is no longer a list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2nd and 3rd sources found by MCE89 are titled "Worsted, Weave, and Web: The Cultural Struggles of the Fictional Knitting-Woman" and "Women Knitting: Domestic Activity, Writing, and Distance in Virginia Woolf's Fiction". Both "knitting-woman" and "women knitting" refer to knitters, even if not using that word. One of the sources found by Astaire is titled "An Incomplete Survey of Fictional Knitters". (Thank you to two Delete !voters for finding sources!) The book Sock that Daranios found appears to have 5 or 6 pages on knitters in literature (I can only see snippets). So four sources that discuss knitters in fiction. It also seems clear that there are enough sources for an article on knitting in fiction, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was enough for knitting as protest (eg [6]), which is not yet even mentioned in the Knitting article. This list definitely needs improvement (removing external links and providing some context would be a good start), but doesn't need deleting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The sources that are being mentioned might be useful in creating a completely new article or article section on the broader concept of knitting in fiction, but do not do anything to justify or support a itemized list of specific fictional characters that have knitted. And as this particular list is a poorly written list with no sources to justify the entries or context to allow readers to actually glean any information from, there is, as said by Pokelego999, no content here worth preserving. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. I'm surprised to find that sources exist and have been presented. The current status of the article, and whether or not it is indiscriminate, may be remedied by regular editing, and hence no policy-based reason for deletion remains. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the WP:NOT issues could in fact be remedied by regular editing or are inherent to the concept would seem to be a point of contention here. If one takes the position that they are inherent to the concept, then WP:DELREASON#14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia—still remains as a policy-based reason for deletion. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - In what way would NOT apply to this list that could not be remedied by regular editing? Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - The argument would be that this is fundamentally not appropriate for a list approach, and that the steps that could be taken to end up with an acceptable article on a similar topic (which would then have a different title and entirely different contents) does not constitute regular editing of this article. There seems to be broad support for a knitting in literature prose article (or corresponding section in the main knitting article), as noted. TompaDompa (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion There seems to be general agreement that a prose article on this topic (or a closely related one), or alternatively a section in the main knitting article, would be a good idea. As an WP:Alternative to deletion, I propose that we turn this into a prose article and change the title (since it would no longer be a list). That seems like it would be a compromise solution that most or all participants here could get behind. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Amended per below. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy if someone were to take the effort to transform this into a prose article, which may be Knitting in literatue or Knitters in literature, or even a section "Knitting/Knitters in literature" within Knitting, if that's preferred. Seeing that some of the examples listed here do appear in the discovered secondary sources, and possibly most will, I expect that we will not loose what is relevant in the current state of the article while improving on the present issues. I am only opposed to deleting everything first and leaving unclear if there will be a better replacement in the forseeable future. Daranios (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on a section in the main knitting article being an option; I have added it to my suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that turning this into a regular article about Knitters in literature, or a similar title, would be a good idea. Daranios has made a start by adding refs and some info, but it would be rather disjointed to have info from the various sources against each knitter in the list. I also agree with Daranios that it's better to work on improving this rather than deleting it. So I guess the WP:ATD we'd be recommending is a move from List of knitters in literature to Knitters in literature? RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Knitting in literature (-ing, not -ers) seems like the preferred option. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete per TompaDompa and WP:CONSENSUS. Most of this isn't sourced and doesn't meet the standard for its own article. Is there enough coverage to preserve a section? Nothing I see in the article at present, but some editors are saying that sources exist. I'm going to WP:AGF, and otherwise note the consensus that this shouldn't have an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP: Consensus is a valid argument in this regard. It really just describe what consensus is and how it is determined and achieved. If consensus was established, this AfD would've been closed but there is still no clear consensus in my opinion. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with regard to earlier "mostly unsourced" opinions: Now more than half is referenced with secondary sources which can also provide commentary during further expansion on the topic. Textile as material, method, and metaphor in Virginia Woolf's fiction is another secondary source which can most likely provide further context for the examples from Virginia Woolf, but I can only access a small part. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Allright, I have now added examples of what the secondary source can provide as commentary, both on knitters in literature as a group and on individual examples. And while this is only a start in both form and amount, all delete !votes based on "there is no content worth preserving" are no longer accurate in my view. Pinging @PARAKANYAA, MCE89, Pokelego999, Piotrus, and Rorshacma:. Daranios (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good start towards turning this into a prose article on knitting in literature. I have removed unsourced entries and external links. I'll take a look to see what else can be done. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed with Tompa. I'm in favor of striking my previous vote in favor of a Weak Keep. I'm admittedly still unconfident, but given there's a lot more coverage and a good chance at this being expandable, I'm in favor of letting it stick around. However, I do strongly believe this should be moved to Knitting in literature, per Tompa, since this is less a list and more a prose article at this point. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the list of unsourced, largely contextless entries has been replaced by the start of a prose article or section on the topic, I am also fine with changing my recommendation to a Weak Keep. I agree that it should be moved to "Knitters in Literature" or potentially merged into a broader topic, but there is now sourced content to preserve. Rorshacma (talk) 19:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios Nice; I did not expect this would be salvageable. I've amended my vote accordingly. This still needs renaming per TD. I assume a move after AfD won't be controversial? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has been continuously improved since the AfD opened, and is still happening, so a further week's discussion would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with TompaDompa that Knitting in literature would be far better than a list of knitters. We already have an 'Analysis' section here; the elements of the list can be folded into a text discussion. In particular, there are plentiful reliable sources on knitting in Virginia Woolf's fiction; I doubt if any other author's treatment of knitting has received so much attention. For this AfD I suggest KEEP while the prose article is developed, unless folks fancy working on the prose article rather quickly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been changed considerably. Although it truly could be considered a stub, the sources now show that there is academic discussion of the role of knitting in literature. Because the article is no longer a list; the title "Knitting in literature" would be more appropriate. It should be referenced from the knitting article. I wouldn't merge because I suspect that the article will grow considerably. If it doesn't, a future decision to merge would make sense. Lamona (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aave

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

Clearly not meeting WP NCORP; deleted last year at AfD and recreated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave Protocol; all the sources are or paid, or trivial with no reliable deep coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Software, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A couple of reasons for why this should be speedily kept, and why the AfD should be quickly closed. I write about all kinds of related topics (Bitcoin City and many others) and am certain that Aave is notable enough. That's why I made sure that academic journal articles and many other sources were added.

Aave is #32 on Coinmarketcap. The top 50 cryptocurrencies on Coinmarketcap.com are certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This isn't some relatively unknown altcoin that is barely used. In the crypto world, you see Aave's presence a lot. Ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency and they can tell you without a doubt that Aave is notable enough. Might as well delete Dai (cryptocurrency), Uniswap, or other articles with similar levels of notability?
Aave is already on the French Wikipedia (fr:Aave) and the Persian Wikipedia (fa:پروتکل Aave), which were created and edited by different editors familiar with how notable different crypto topics and coins really are. They were also created before the current English Wikipedia article for Aave was created. These are also two of the largest Wikipedias.
The first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave Protocol, had only one delete vote, so it was closed as a soft delete. Re-creating the article with sufficient citations is thus a valid option, since the original version apparently didn't have that many sources. Per WP:CONCISE, this is better named as Aave, and most sources refer to it as such without the Protocol part, which was why the article was created as Aave rather than Aave Protocol. The French Wikipedia also has fr:Aave, and it was created before the current English Wikipedia article was.
The sources are not "trivial" as the nominator claims. Multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, in fact 6+ papers (something that's practically impossible for barely known altcoins), and additional sources cited include TechCrunch, Bloomberg News, and Goldman Sachs Research, not random non-notable crypto blogs. The article does not have any blatantly obviously promotional content either (no awards, no corporate puffery, no corporate leadership fluff, no tabloid sensationalism), since most of it actually looks quite, if not a bit too, technical.
Finally, the AfD nominator is recklessly deleting articles without properly evaluating everything. He's been making dozens of disruptive AfDs and has been disregarding WP:BEFORE and other Wikipedia language versions, and neither has he been properly evaluating sources and notability. Thie nominator's contribution history has nothing but AfD nominations, and the account was created just last year with around 100 edits. To add to the confusion, the nominator's comments are frequently mangled, ungrammatical, and poorly worded. This kind of activity is highly disruptive and inappropriate, so I would suggest that this nomination be quickly closed.

Even if we disregard #5, #1-#4 provide very strong reasons for why this article should be quickly kept.

Newatlascamels (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The “speedy keep” vote is effectively winning the jackpot by raising arguments that should not have been raised. It's classic canvassing too. Let's analyze the sources: Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and other media outlets do not appear to provide reliable coverage, only announcements of launching A, launching B, etc - classic WP Trades. --91.222.32.118 (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources don’t give enough in-depth information to meet NCORP guidelines. There isn’t enough solid coverage to show the topic is notable for Wikipedia --Xrimonciam (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. It is an article about a protocol (software) and WP:NPRODUCT is the relevant criteria. It is covered in-depth by Finnish sources such as Tivi ([7], [8], [9], [10]), Kauppalehti ([11]), Yle ([12]). Plus, peer-reviewed academic journals articles already cited in the article are enough to pass WP:N. Veldsenk (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This book covers Aave in full depth pp. 291–297: Di Maggio, Marco (2024). Blockchain, Crypto and DeFi: Bridging Finance and Technology. Wiley. pp. 291–297. ISBN 9781394275908. Veldsenk (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In-depth journal articles: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Veldsenk (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NSOFTWARE. The subject is discussed in Finnish sources that seem reliable (for example The Finnish Broadcasting Company). One of the journal articles provided by Veldsenk also provides WP:SIGCOV.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rückschlag

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

A one-house enclave which is part of a small series of enclaves. I redirected it to Vennbahn#Enclaves and exclaves, which I now suggest as outcome of this AfD as well. The first source, "Vennbahn stories", has just one sentence about this, "Rückschlag bei Konzen ist mit nur 1,5 Hektar die kleinste Exklave Deutschlands mit nur einem Haus auf ihrer Fläche." The other source also treats it as part of the Vennbahn enclaves. Note that these "exclaves" are only separated from their country by a cycling path, and have no special status. A fair number of other sources give it the same treatment, either just the name or a one-sentence mention in the context of the Vennbahn enclaves. Fram (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Belgium, and Germany. Fram (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed by nom. There seems no point in having multiple tiny articles on tiny sub-aspects of the same thing. It's quite unclear whether the tiny exclaves could be separately notable, but as they'll make more sense together in one article, that hardly matters. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per nom. This isn't like its own village, it's a very small area that can be covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 17:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Seema Midha

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

The subject fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:GNG and WP:NBIO, also failed to find any Significant Coverage. Also see, Draft:Dr.Seema Midha, Seema Midha and Draft:Seema Midha. Taabii (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, India, and Rajasthan. Taabii (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, article was recently salted as Seema Midha and Dr. Seema Midha (with added space), and has been recreated under this title to avoid this. IP address has removed speedy deletion notices with false edit summaries.
Comment: This subject has been deleted through 2 previous AFDs and as speedies (see summary at Draft talk:Seema Midha) and the obvious titles are salted, hence the current protection-evading variant. There is also an open SPI. AllyD (talk) 15:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page was previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seema Midha in 2014 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seema Midha (2nd nomination) in 2017. Billclinton1996 (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD I took it to AFD for a better consensus, also I failed to move it to Draft as a Draft of same name already existed. Taabii (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous notability failure, and the article has been repeatedly created under various names (note that it includes the honorific "Dr" which is not supposed to be in article titles). I didn't even find any news mentions and a search mostly just returned hits from her own Web site. Titles held do not confer automatic notability and the sourcing is most certainly not there right now. Sources in the article are all her own stuff or not even remotely usable. Either someone is very adamant on getting Midha onto Wikipedia, or there are blatant COI problems. Billclinton1996 (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, A7, G11 and possibly G5 depending on the SPI outcome all apply here. Nickps (talk) 15:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per nom. as it was previously deleted and salted TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things That Hang from Trees

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

Obscure film, no reliable sources, no credible assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Passes WP:NFILM. Reviews at Slant Magazine [17],Austin Chronicle [18], Variety [19]. Was a WP:BEFORE done? DonaldD23 talk to me 15:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Donaldd23. @Orangemike:, please kindly consider withdrawing this nomination to save us some time. -Mushy Yank. 00:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 00:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catskill Mountain 3500 Club

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

Obscure club without adequate WP:ORGDEPTH coverage to meet WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions like this [20] but lacks in-depth coverage. Gheus (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found more indepth coverage and I am adding it ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the references added by Daniel Case (talk) after deletion nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Behappyar. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Ingilby

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

Redirect to Sir Thomas Colvin William Ingilby, 6th Baronet. If the article on Sir Thomas is subsequently deleted, redirect to Ripley Castle. This lady is not notable. She married a minor aristocrat and helps manage the estate. With one exception ("My North: Lady Emma Ingilby") the sourcing does not focus on Lady Emma. What is she notable for? cagliost (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingilby is a British business woman, and the article includes multiple news sources describing her work on the castle as a hotel, bar, and event venue. Yes, she is married to man who inherited the castle, but they both run the business. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's not notable either! cagliost (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of British business women, it's not notable. cagliost (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sir Thomas Colvin William Ingilby, 6th Baronet; the incumbent in a long line of Baronetage. Innumerable women and men help manage an estate / business, so ask why does being a current co-owner of Ripley Castle warrant having a dedicated article? Mmberney (talk)
Keep There is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. As well as the source mentioned by the nominator, there is a para about her in "Queen of the Castle" (in the article), and a two-part profile in the Ripon Gazette in 2001 (not yet in the article), and coverage over many years of her activities at the castle and surrounding community. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph and one quote in "Queen of the Castle" (Daily Telegraph) is not significant coverage.

Could you provide a reference (title, date) to the Ripon Gazette profile? cagliost (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logarithmic timeline

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

An attempt was made to bundle this into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed logarithmic timeline, but the bundling was not done properly. I don't think enough analysis was put into determining if the topic meets WP:GNG — the main reason Detailed logarithmic timeline was deleted was WP:IINFO. Google Scholar returns lots of results about time perception, such as Ren et al. (2020); as well as a few odd items like Deane and Stokes (2002) on the physics of breaking waves; but nothing about a logarithmic timeline for history or the far future. The lone source is to one about an individual timeline that is linear; it mentions and links to a timeline on the history of life in passing, but not that it is logarithmic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in the similar discussion linked in the nomination statement. Interstellarity (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is where not just mechanically looking for the article title and having an idea of what to look for pays off. The concept of a logarithmic timescale was documented by, amongst others, Nigel Calder in 1983: A logarithmic time line
[…] is no more mysterious than the maneuver of an aircraft as it nears touchdown and flares out to avoid hitting the ground too hard. The rate of "descent" through time diminishes as one approaches the present, according to a strict but simple rule that a stipulated proportional change in ancient dates always corresponds to the same distance along the timescale.
— Nigel Calder, ISBN 9780701139254 p. 75
Alas, Börje Ekstig' 2011 book ISBN 9781456779542 is self-published through AuthorHouse, because on pages 12–13 it not only explains what a logarithmic timescale is, it gives much the same reverse logarithmic calendar as in the reverse timeline section of this article, their both going back to the origin of life at $10^9$ Ma BP, for example.
But Joel Levy's Big Book of Science (ISBN 9780785835998, Quarto) is not self-published and explains on page 94 that when it comes to the difficulties of comprehensibly visualizing the history of the Earth, "[o]ne way around this is to use a logarithmic timescale".
Where rôte mechanistic keyword searching fails to pay off is that it doesn't find David Christian's Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History, a book that nowhere says the word "logarithm" but that is logarithmic (albeit not base 10) in overall structure, the scale of the book increasing as it works chapter by chapter towards the present, going from Ga at the start through Ma by chapter 5 to decades by chapter 11, and at least useful for being able to source explanatory notes on events in the table, satisfying any "But what do historians include?" questions. For another actually explicit logarithmic timeline of the history of the Earth, albeit a less detailed one (but in colour ☺), see Foley (ORCID 0000-0001-7510-0223) et al., chapter 16 of ISBN 9783030822026 (also published as doi:10.1016/j.ancene.2013.11.002), page 206. There's a logarithmic timeline of the past 10Ma on page 217 of ISBN 9780241280904 by Simon Lewis, for yet another "logarithmic timescale, where each jump is an order of magnitude" going down from 1Ma to 1Da from left to right.
This most definitely is not some novelty that was invented by Wikipedia. And to those, not historians/geologists/whatever, who opine that it is not useful, I give the words of the late geomorphology professor Antony R. Orme about xyr reverse logarithmic timeline of the Earth going from 1Ma up to 4.5Ga in doi:10.1093/oso/9780195313413.003.0008: "The logarithmic timescale condenses the distant past, thereby enhancing Mesozoic and Cenozoic events relevant to the present landscape."
Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expressing time in the logarithmic scale is a legitimate approach for analyzing many different phenomena - see Google Scholar search [21]. The page can be improved of course. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per My very best wishes. Svartner (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment about this page at the bundled AfD: The concept of a timeline is encyclopedic, but the idea of making the axis logarithmic is just a convenient display convention, not a separate concept that needs a page unto itself. The bulk of the page is unsourced and would be, at best, synthesis. XOR'easter (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vendasta

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable company. Sources are just regular funding round sources. The sources are mostly paid uublications. Fails WP:NCORP. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The entire history section is quite literally just news about funding and its draft was rejected a few days ago. Limmidy (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Highly promotional. The creator of this article was warned and his original draft on the subject was rejected, so that's a solid no for me. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previous instance deleted at AFD in 2017, recent instance rejected at AFC and awaiting another review, but the new user who submitted it has gone ahead and copied it into mainspace, so draftification is not an option. Coverage of funding and acquisition announcements falls under WP:CORPTRIV, and the industry awards listed do not appear inherently notable. The Globe and Mail article (16 June 2021) may be the best of the given references, though it is basically a CEO interview. Searches find mention of staff layoffs in 2023-4 ([22], [23]), which are not mentioned in the current article, but would not contribute to notability here. I don't see the depth of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For better or worse, a casual trawl of Google News finds plenty of WP:RS including VentureBeat [24], multiple The Globe And Mail [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], CBC News [30], [31], [32], CTV News [33], [34], [35], CBS News [36], Global News Canada [37], [38], Government of Canada [39], etc. All these articles are examples of WP:CORPDEPTH & "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and thus meet WP:NCORP & WP:GNG, and they cover different incidents, so its not WP:1E either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrosey (talk • contribs) 08:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're citing WP:CORPDEPTH, it quite literally says: "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." As mentioned above, most of these sources fall under WP:CORPTRIV. There's no depth in these articles to indicate why this company is notable, so even though it may pass WP:GNG based on quantity, I'm quite certain it fails WP:NCORP by quality overall. None of the CTV News articles even attribute an author. The CBS News article is attributed to "PaidContent.org". Limmidy (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:CORPDEPTH does emphasize the need for substantial coverage, it does not set an absolute requirement that all sources must contain extensive depth individually. WP:GNG remains the overarching guideline, and if the company has received significant coverage across multiple reliable sources, it meets the threshold for notability.

Additionally, WP:NCORP does not override WP:GNG but serves as a supplementary guideline. If the cumulative coverage establishes independent and sustained attention from credible outlets, notability is still met. The absence of an author in CTV News articles or attribution to "PaidContent.org" in CBS News does not automatically invalidate their reliability—many reputable news platforms publish staff-written or syndicated content. Unless these sources fail WP:RS entirely, dismissing them solely on this basis is not justified. Jamesrosey (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CBC and Globe and Mail articles linked above are enough (barely) to establish notability. Some of the linked articles are trivial, shallow coverage, but some are reasonably in-depth and give context beyond routine announcements. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BARE. The CBS and CBN stories are just sufficient for notability. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkana Sharma

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

Fails notability due to lack of coverage by reliable sources. Tone of article is highly promotional and advertorial. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely not notable, if notable WP:TNT applies as content is LLM generated. A09|(talk) 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This is a very new article from a very new editor (which did not go through AfC). The external link hyperlinked to Zebra Cross is actually a review, and should be a reference. The article creator needs to look for other reviews of her published books, or articles about her (not by her). This author may be notable - let's give the editor time to work on it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That should work. Creator moved it from userspace to draft then to main, I mistakenly thought this was a contested draftification, hence the AfD and not a draftify myself ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:50, 5 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) 10:03, 7 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) 02:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mihir Ahammed

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While this recent incident has received local media attention, the subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:EVENT. It's a tragedy, but unfortunately a common occurrence. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Schools, and Kerala. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd be inclined to lean delete, however the widespread coverage of the event and the statement from the Indian Congress means this could be notable soon. I think this would fail WP:EVENTCRIT at this time, but if there were changes in legislation or other changes made to Indian schools in the coming weeks, this would thus become notable under the same criteria. For example, the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons is a similarly tragic event which became notable because of the ensuing inquiry and creation of new cyber bullying legislation. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This wouldn't pass the 10YR test, this is a rather simple death of a non-notable individual. I can't see this as being more than a shocking news story that no one will remember is 6mths. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This recent incident has received national media attention [40][41][42],[43] and the police have confirmed that it was a Suicide

death due to Ragging, and there is a reference to the evidence, and the topic meets the criteria for WP:EVENT. This is not a common occurrence. An incident that is likely to be a model or catalyst for something else of lasting importance is likely to be noteworthy WP:LASTING. School ragging laws are likely to change because of this, as the police have taken up the case and the case is being heard in court[44]. Spworld2 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely TOOSOON then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To be honest, this strikes me as no different than the dozens of North American articles that we have about high-profile youth suicides/deaths that come after intense bullying. See e.g. Suicide of Rodney Hulin, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Amanda Todd, Death of Conrad Roy, Death of Nex Benedict. Each of those articles have enduring notability because of (a) the socially shocking or surprising type of bullying that preceded the death [sexual violence in juvenile detention, anti-goth bullying, anti-gay bullying, grooming & cyberbullying, female to male domestic partner abuse, and transphobic bullying respectively], and (b) widespread social and political response as a result. The backlash and social pressure campaign around "ragging" is generating an equal, if not more notable, social response than any of the above-mentioned suicides. If we selectively delete this article, we'd be maintaining a dramatically higher threshold of notability for South Asian youth suicides than for North America. Flip^and Flopped ツ 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Please provide a valid reason this should be kept. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the user has provided the reason. There was also this essay I don't remember name of, which tells not to cite all policies and guidelines here and and there. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The user has made a speech giving their opinion about what we should do in this general circumstance. They haven't presented one refutation of how this page fails NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merely listing policies and guidelines is discouraged on XfDs, I'll agree. Quoting and applying relevant guidelines and policies (as I have done) is expected. The Hindu reports over 10,000 suicides in Kerala in each of the last three years. Roughly 27 every day. More than one every hour. Unfortunately, suicide is a common occurrence in Kerala (and worldwide), and suicide after bullying is one of the major categories. I assert there's no sources presented or applied which make this case more than just a run of the mill tragedy. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. We have no evidence presented this case will lead to any broader change in local attitudes or laws. The burden of proof (on notability and verifiability) is on the contributors who wish to keep this article. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see contributors here have recently merged a summary of this event over to the list of Indian incidents at Ragging, so this unfortunate loss may yet help provide a case for others. I will watch that page and help defend the insertion, if possible. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge more into ragging, then redirect. That's an appropriate context. This incident is all too common, akin to school shootings in the United States. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As nominator, I'm never adverse to alternatives to deletion. I see another sub-section Ragging#Major_incidents about Sri Lanka which lists incidents with inline citation. Perhaps merging this material the parallel subsection may be a way to utilize (and better organize) coverage to improve the Ragging page. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Suicide is common in the world, and in India too, But this Suicide was preceded by a socially shocking or surprising type of brutal Hazing and ragging, Racism, resulting in a widespread social and political response. (Important political response: Leaders of the Opposition(India), Leader of the in Lok Sabha and Indian National Congress) The backlash and social pressure campaign surrounding "ragging" creates a social response that is equal to, and more significant than, any other social response. Even before this, the interactions caused by Hazing and ragging have been maintained, for example : Rohith Vemula, Suicide of Fathima Latheefand Suicide of Payal Tadvi etc..~~ Spworld2 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the page creator, you are certainly welcome to all your opinions. Do you have anything to add to this discussion which is based in policy or sources? BusterD (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EVENT To pass There are significant and reliable sources (References),

sources:- TOI-Ref [45][46][47][48]

Deccan Herald-Ref:-[49] [50]

NDTV--Ref:-[51][52][53]

India Today--Ref:- [54]

The Economic Times--Ref:- [55]

The New Indian Express--Ref:- [56][57][58]

Mathrubhumi:-[59][60][61][62][63]

Republic TV :- [64]

Other:-[65][66][67][68]

Sorry for re-reading any references Spworld2 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of sources is not an argument. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments for Keep seem to lack P&G basis, but I still don't see consensus to delete or merge with Ragging, where the subject is already briefly covered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Akpan Inyang-Etoh

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

Could not find sources on a BEFORE search. Seems to have been written by someone close to the subject. Princess of Ara 12:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Princess of Ara 12:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadron epoch

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

This topic is not notable. Modern cosmology textbooks do not use it. Google ngram view says no ngrams. One primary source says "hadronic epoch". One primary reference with few citations mention term, that is not enough for an article. Already tried PROD. Please see Talk:Hadron epoch for additional information. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a term that is notable for this event is the "quark-hadron phase transition", but there's no page for that on Wikipedia. (There is a page for: cosmological phase transition.) Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and I suppose we could rename Hardon epoch -> quark-hadron phase transition, but I think filling out cosmological phase transition first makes more sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, that makes sense. However, this behavior is also theorized to occur within neutron stars, so a separate article may be appropriate at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that there is also a QCD matter page. Aseyhe (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am a cosmologist and have not encountered this term outside Wikipedia (aside from non-expert sources who likely learnt it from Wikipedia). Even just looking at the physics, there is not a meaningful hadron epoch. Pions briefly contribute to the primordial plasma at temperatures between the QCD phase transition at 170 MeV and the pion mass of ~135 MeV, but even during that time period they only contribute a small fraction of the total energy density. This is even brief enough that there's no clear beginning or end -- the effective number of degrees of freedom drops continuously and rapidly throughout this period (see e.g. figure 2 of arXiv:1204.3622 [69]). Aseyhe (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on scope @Johnjbarton: @Aseyhe: If this term actually does not exist, can we delete it across the other language Wikipedia's too? Being made in 2006, the article is I think in 17 different languages now. If this article simply isn't notable enough, however, that's different, and it should just be deleted here. Johnson524 16:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I can't answer your question. I am asserting that the term is not notable and we should delete this article. The term "exists" in that the article exists and there are blogs with the term. That's all I know. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are tonnes of physics sources that talk about the QCD phase transition, and really we don't do it justice, especially as we don't mention the figure $10 -5 seconds$ anywhere, which is a rather basic number to mention. However, there are also quite a number of books on cosmology that talk about the hadron era (not "hadron epoch") and the lepton era (not "lepton epoch") and the radiation era and the reality is that by blindly searching for the article title and counting Google hits, rather than actually knowing what to look for, you are looking for the wrong thing.
For just three examples: Josip Kleczek's The Universe (ISBN 9789401014854) has a "Chronology of the universe" section in chapter 5 that goes "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era". A book from last century, Goldberg' and Scadron' Physics of Stellar Evolution and Cosmology (ISBN 9780677217406) in chapter 7 has the same "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era" progression. Coming back to the 21st century the Springer Fundamental Astronomy book (ISBN 9783540001799, too many editors to list) has its history of the universe section in chapter 19 and once again proceeds "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era" → "Matter Era".
Once you actually know a bit about the subject, and know the right things to look for, sources come out of your ears. Three books is barely scraping the surface of the available sources on these eras. Moreover, the way to fix the article, using all of these sources and the ordinary editing and page move tools, is obvious.
Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage, and the term has practically no usage in scientific publications. Also I believe Aseyhe is right in their assessment. Artem.G (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge. Notability does not seem to be a concern. The term "Hadron era" registers in Ngrams. One can see that its use peaked in the 70s, so perhaps it is not a central concept in modern research, but one can nevertheless find it in some recent textbooks and reference works.[70][71][72][73][74] See the Internet Archive Search for "hadron era" for more. A stand-alone page is not necessary, it can be merged to Quark-hadron phase transition (does not exist yet) or some other related article like cosmological phase transition. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ngram link. I suppose this is an argument to rename the page to "Hadron era", but sadly the "correct" usage for 'epoch' as an event and 'era' as a time span has evidently given way to these as being synonymous. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that the Springer book (Jähmefyysikko has found the 6th edition, I see; where I was reading the 4th.) talks about a time span from $10 -8 seconds$ to $10 -4 seconds$ . Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move (I am the nominator) It clear this delete proposal will fail because two editors found references to "Hadron era" which undermine my main claim on notability. Based on this, the article should move to that title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjbarton (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator has withdrawn their nomination, and is now calling for renaming the article rather than deleting it, based on sources presented by Uncle G. As others here have argued for deletion, this cannot be speedy-closed. Relisting to see if we can get consensus to retain the page under the suggested new title.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem.G @Aseyhe Would you assent to Move? We have two editors with sources for "Hadron era" so I don't believe delete will succeed. I don't think the article is worth "merge" and I doubt anyone else will either. It seems like an older term, part of a concept of a series of "Eras" that modern treatments don't use (the rest of the series being even more suspect). But sourcing this is not worth my time: The most I'd like to invest is to fix the name. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move is fair given that. A quick comment on eras: "radiation-dominated era" and "matter-dominated era" (or variants, e.g. "matter domination") are extremely common in the discourse. They are distinguished by the equation of state of the dominant component of the energy density. "Inflation" is also an era in the same sense. The distinctions between these eras are important because a lot of phenomena proceed very differently depending on that equation of state. I can't recall ever seeing the terms "quark era", "photon era", etc., but in principle the underlying ideas can be relevant if you are thinking about the abundance of conserved species (like dark matter or the baryon asymmetry) or the kinematics of a kinetically decoupled species (like dark matter). These are all part of the radiation era; the only distinction is how many "relativistic degrees of freedom" contribute to the radiation. ("Hadron era" still doesn't make sense even in this context for reasons noted before.) Aseyhe (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move as suggested. Bearian (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shujinkou

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

No coverage from any WP:VG high-quality reliable sources. No sustained coverage from reputable outlets. Article's subject is a small title that does not meet the GNG. Removing primary sourcing from the article would leave behind a trivial amount of data and render it an eternal stub (if that); material in the infobox is not supported by citations. As an aside, the article was created by disclosed COI editor. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 11:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. Disagreeing with the nomination for deletion:

Other indie titles with far less coverage, fewer sources, and less notability have been present, re: Fragoria, Elasto Mania, Holodance, . Shujinkou has been covered by various news sites and interviews in multiple languages.
The title just released today, and coverage and reviews are still coming in—it is true that the wiki page hasn't been updated with various new sources over the last few days. If the state of the page remains the exact same in 3-6 months, then the potential for deletion is warranted, but it seems a bit early.
Primary sourcing can be removed, but recent secondary sourcing with new information and press coverage seems yet to be added, see: https://sequentialplanet.com/shujinkou-the-five-year-journey-from-platformer-to-dungeon-crawling-epic/, https://ladiesgamers.com/shujinkou-early-access-impressions/, https://www.rpgsite.net/feature/14379-therpgs-2025-every-rpg-their-release-dates and more, - Edits to the page to include more sources and recent coverage is recommended.
Various material in the infobox can be supported with citations, though they seemingly haven't been added, for credits, see: https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/ps5/506578-shujinkou/credit (multiple users adjusted this, acknowledged that this is marked as an Unreliable source) and https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19244512/ as two secondary sources.

It is still too early for deletion nomination—reputable outlets are taking notice, as noted below (based on definitions in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources).

Matt Sainsbury from DigitallyDownloaded mentioned and raised attention to Shujinkou in an article just a day ago called "New releases 2-13-2025 to 2-19-2025" by Robert Allen at Tech-Gaming - https://www.tech-gaming.com/new-releases-2-13-25/, saying "Speaking of “exquisite”, “good” and “JRPG action,” I’ve also got to cheer for Shujinkou. It’s a dungeon crawler, and it’s perfectly fine on that level alone, but as Robert says, it’s also a handy learning tool, especially for those early on in their Japanese language journey. The Duolingo Owl is well and truly dead with this slice of joy out there."
Shujinkou, a role-playing game, has been mentioned by RPGamer, RPGFan, and RPG Site, all of which qualify in the Genre-specific table of Video games/Sources. Interview and news articles for RPGamer (and an incoming review), one article and a full review for RPGFan, and noting the game exists and its release date on RPG Site. All three sites bringing up the same title implies some sense of acknowledgment regarding the notability of this video game.
It has a Metacritic and Opencritic page, and as mentioned above with "it may still be early,", reviews are coming in over time (https://www.metacritic.com/game/shujinkou/, https://opencritic.com/game/18105/shujinkou)
Not necessarily reputable per se, but a full review in another language, Hungarian, with an 8/10 rating: https://www.gamekapocs.hu/cikk/4684/shujinkou_teszt

Warm regards Julian Michael Rice (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting that the above is the disclosed COI editor. I do not believe these sources constitute "sustained coverage". At the very least, this article was made WP:TOOSOON by someone with a financial interest in the game's performance. While this review is ongoing, I will remove primary sources. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per ImaginesTigers reasoning and a lot of the sources are along the lines of IMDB, press releases, or the several of the sources including the non-English ones just seems to be mostly the same basic information from the press release repeated. There isn't sufficient significant coverage DarkeruTomoe (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Got a review from RPGFan, and trivial mentions from other places, so it's not totally unknown, but fails to reach the threshold for WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, but by the time this AfD ends, if no new reviews pop up, it's probably not going to be notable for a while. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FilmXtra Uncut

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

My WP:BEFORE totally failed to find any coverage of either the original program or its spin off. I would have proded this, but it had been previously proded. Strangely a different article under the name FilmXtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems to have been deleted, but with a deletion that post dates the creation of Film Xtra. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United Kingdom. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Safaei

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

Article has notability concerns since Dec 2020. Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSPERSON with passing mentions and event results. Just playing in a league/Pro volleyball club is not enough to become notable. Similar concern was expressed here for this Basketball player Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hossein Rahmati. I would like to know what other contributors think. Lekkha Moun (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Volleyball, and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Jawad

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

Sad event, but a WP:BIO1E without lasting notability. Fram (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Bangladesh. Fram (talk) 11:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable before his death, and the tragic accident that killed him, even had it been notable in itself, would only have contributed to WP:BIO1E. Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete 1. Asim Jawad's death had enough media coverage in Bangladesh as all of the newspaper covered his death and it was broadcast on other medias too. Provided enough source.

~~2. He has Sword of Honour,Bangladesh Chief of Air Staff Certificate of Appreciation Chief of Air Staff Trophy for being the best in flying which was conducted by IAF, not BAF. Also served in MONUSCO.~~

3. Besides, before crashing he had an opportunity to eject but he rather chose to eject at a safe place which caused his death as he was late. If he ejected at right time, he could save himself but it would result death to hundreds. For his bravery I think his article should not be deleted.

4. He was a notable officer inside Bangladesh Air Force & Bangladesh Armed Forces. Can confirm this as my own dad served in the armed forces for 29 years before going to retirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptShayan (talk • contribs) 12:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Draftify — The page can be worked on in Draftspace, since the pilot won Sword of Honour, there can be citations mentioning him and providers of information. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 3:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Draftify- It can be worked on in draftspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptShayan (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pravaig

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The references are not from reliable resources, it Lacks of WP:SIRS. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OnMobile

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

Entire article based on self published and press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NCORP. B-Factor (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most references are primary, press releases or profiles. Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, India, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Lord Fine$$

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

Probably an auto-biography about a rapper no one has heard of. Clubette (call) 10:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Clubette (call) 10:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N, no WP:RS or significant coverage. (Probably an auto bio, but don't quote me on that) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The artist only has around 30,000 combined streams. Songstats 37.96.97.183 (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi School of Occult Sciences

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

An article about an enterprise, created by a new editor along with a new attempt to place an article on the founder (which is blocked following multiple prior deletions). The given references are primary; no evidence provided or found to indicate that this private school has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Delhi. AllyD (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created to make the article of founder more notable (which was deleted previously per nom.) and also it lacks sig cov. in reliable sources TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2029 Indonesian presidential election

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Cited source does not even mention the 2029 election. Possibly redirect to Elections in Indonesia as an ATD. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Indonesia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not too soon, for example there is an article about 2030 United States Senate elections.

Cited sources do mention the next presidential election will be held in 2029, the election has been officially mentioned too in Constitutional Court of Indonesia decision on January 2025. Everywiki (talk) 10:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Everywiki: That article you're comparing this to is adequately sourced, whereas this article only has one source where the topic is barely mentioned (which is the reason why it is considered "too soon"). CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elections in Indonesia per Everywiki, It's not WP:TOOSOON. The "potential candidate" section feels like a WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALLy. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity: TOOSOON applies because there isn't sufficient coverage on the topic in question, which is the case when you search for "2029 Indonesian election". CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elections in Indonesia It is TOOSOON because there is no sourced information in the article specific to the 2029 election. If we had opinion polls or confirmed candidates then I would be in favour of keeping. However, the candidate list is entirely unsourced. Number 5 7 01:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (attorney)

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

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

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

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

No objection to improving the sourcing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. Acting or not, there is a single Register of Copyrights for the whole of the United States, and their legal responsibility is substantial. While the case would be stronger if this was a presidentially appointed position, it is still a nonfunctionary national office, the equivalent of an agency head. BD2412 T 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources that meets the GNG are yet to be brought in for this discussion. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 02:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously noted, the subject passes WP:NPOL, a WP:SNG. TJRC (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I don’t see anything anywhere. Being the head of a government agency doesn’t make one an automatic pass for NPOL. I am only seeing this rationale when it comes to agencies owned by the West. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with BD2412. Subject meets WP:NPOL. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional input is needed to determine consensus. Please provide further discussion on the article's notability and reliability of sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Afro 📢Talk! 07:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, I do not see how the subject meets the criteria for passing WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or criterion #2 of WP:NPOL. Many of the keep !votes appear to be misplaced. WP:NPOL #1 has never provided, and does not currently provide, notability supplementation for a 'Register of Copyrights.' This position is more akin to that of an agency head, and if keep !voters are asserting that the subject qualifies under WP:NPOL #1 simply by holding this office, then that would imply that every head of a government agency in Nigeria is also automatically covered under WP:NPOL #1. So, the outcome of this AfD is going to really matter in "establishing", so to say, notability supplementation under WP:NPOL #1 for "federal agency heads" of Nigeria as in the list I linked to above. In fact, all Registers of Copyrights who currently have articles simply for occupying that position is currently not notable as far as NPOL is concerned. Simple. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been greatly improved. I've added a section of publications that are independent of the copyright office. I think those show that she is a published thinker in the area of copyright. I admit that the citation counts aren't high compared to copyright profs like Lawrence Lessig but he's the exceptional star in the field. Lamona (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Triskell

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

Fails WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. The only citation likely refers to this directory entry or something similar. dePRODed in 2016 with the edit summary I edited links and references. I do not see the point to say that it is an unremarkable software. It is used by companies such as Orange, La Banque Postale, Agbar, ect. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and Spain. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails GNG and no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of substantial coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yilmaz Bektaş

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO because all sources are gossip that centered on his celebrity wife who was a Miss World Contestant. Twice, the article was moved to draft space for incubation and to pass through AFC review but was moved directly back to the main space. Majority of the sources are from non WP:RS and they are all written in same format of "Who is ...", "Net Worth", "Age", "Early life", "Education", "Wife". Patre23 (talk) 06:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It appears that his only claim to significance is his previous marriage to Ruffa Gutierrez, but notability isn't inherited. The sourcing, unfortunately, reflects this as pointed out by the nominator. I don't think a redirect would be appropriate given that there's nothing significant about Bektaş in Gutierrez's article. Yue💌 19:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. [[78]],[[79]] and [[80]] are enough to establish notability.
102.91.102.2 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few reliable sources are available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. By the way, "Few reliable sources are available" is not a strong argument for a Keep. Which sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject appears notable due to his business, diplomatic roles, and UN affiliations, but the article lacks proper sourcing and structure. A rewrite with reliable citations is needed to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. -- Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 06:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Garvitpandey1522, what are some reliable sources that exist today? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The independent coverage is essentially gossip and tabloid journalism, this person is not independently notable. His position as a businessman and diplomat does not make him notable. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The current coverage is plenty to meet WP:BIO. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the above sources provided by the IP are reliable. eksisozluk is something like a reddit or twitter, that link is like giving a search URL for the name from twitter and calling it a "reliable source with significant coverage", that's just nonsense, feeddi link literally says the text is taken from wikipedia at the end of the page, the first link is not reliable either, it's more about the wife and it's more like a tabloid journalism like stated by Helpful Raccoon. There is zero "reliable sources with significant coverage enough to establish notability" here. The other keep voters didn't specify any source at all so can't even evaluate these mysterious "few reliable sources". If they were referring the ones linked by the IP, like I explained it's 2 spammy links with one of them being a direct copy paste from wikipedia, and one is a link to a twitter-reddit like user-generated site. Tehonk (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chachro Raid

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

Article uses sources from only one side of the conflict, not using any neutral sources, making the article biased due to its lack of other perspectives. Eltabar243 ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Sindh. – Eltabar243 ^Talk!
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Eltabar243 can you point to areas where this supposed lack of diversity of sources has led to a lack of neutrality? On my quick reading of the article it's not biased.

Note that Ikram Sehgal is cited, and he's from Pakistan. John Gill is American. D you have particular non-Indian sources that can be added?

Based on what I see, this is a Keep but I'll reconsider if good reasons are provided. Oblivy (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Eltabar243, being biased isn't a strong rationale for deletion because NPOV can be remedied through editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeadDesk

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

The article on LeadDesk may warrant deletion if it does not provide sufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Loewstisch (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Technology, Computing, Internet, Software, Europe, and Finland. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: I'm unable to ascertain the quality of finnish sources, but a cursory search shows that there is no WP:NCORP in english or french (while i was at it) sources. the fact this was PRODed before tells me this is probably not a very notable company, despite their impressive list of costumers.

themoon@talk:~$ 08:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:58, 7 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

I couldn't find any independent sources about this podcast. I'd expect a WSJ-affiliated podcast to have sigcov but it doesn't look like it does. Unless someone else has better luck, maybe it should be a redirect to The Wall Street Journal? BuySomeApples (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Radio, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know much about this podcast, aside from it being a competitor to NYT's The Daily. (i think?) In the Hollywood Reporter, I found this, and also this about another WSJ podcast called "With Great Power" which is "part of The Journal". It also appears to be an "Honoree" of a 2024 Webby Award. Limmidy (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review sources brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm not sure what is happening but we have even fewer participants in AFD discussions than normal. It makes determining a consensus a challenge when there aren't many editors offering arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Wall Street Journal, I think the two hollywood reporter articles linked by Limmidy probably combine to be one item of Sigcov. here's another (ish). Would like a third to establish independent notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Furniture Confederation

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

Declined prod. 1 of the 2 sources added is a non independent source from Furniture News. Most of the 10 google news hits for this org are from the non independent Furniture News. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I never like deleting, but I can't find anyone independent writing about this organisation, only this organisation doing its job: lobbying/raising awareness of issues. In effect, no sourcing, nothing to summarise, and if the reader wants to know about it, a google search and the organisation's own website will serve them better than our article. Elemimele (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORG and no significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV found. There was apparently a British Furniture Confederation in 1944, until sometime in the 1950s or early 1960s ... I can find more mention of that in digitised newspapers than of this one. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Eva Vik

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

Non notable film maker. No notable productions. Lots of awards but none are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wonderland is straight PR with no by-line. Forbes plethora of top howevermany of whatever are not significant. LA Weekly is straight PR. Same with Flaunt. There is a big push to promote her but Wikipedia is not a venue for that. Spam built by a cast of SPAs, UPE and socks. Telling is the representation in the opening sentence. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Czech Republic, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the awards here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above "Lots of awards but none are major." There are a LOT of festivals, award ceremonies, award farms, whatevers that hand out or sell a lot of awards, at times making up categories so they can give everyone an award. Listing awards is not enough, they has to be something significant about them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that this is an attempt at WP:PROMO but I don’t agree with the impression that winning awards is insignificant. I have no opinion on the notability of this topic in question and would not !vote. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't agree with an argument that hasn't been presented. That's useful. Good for you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Duffbeerforme, no need to be snarky to an editor who took the time to consider your proposal. We need to encourage participation here at AFD, of all kinds.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Passes WP:GNG with coverage from Deadline (by Zac Ntim et. al.) and Vogue (Czech), with the most significant coverage in the LA Weekly and the Wonderland Magazine references. I acknowledge these latter sources have a entertainment publication-style tone but haven't seen any conversation on talk pages that they don't count towards notability, especially LA Weekly. Nnev66 (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - that LA Weekly bit is from a known spamming PR/SEO flack. It's a 'guest post' that's not marked as paid placement. Also note that the international "branded" franchises of reliable sources like Vogue or Forbes are often pretty sketchy. There's a lot of unearned media in play in this article as it is. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

Non notable actor. Lots of small parts but no significant roles in notable productions. (Significance of parts is puffed up in the article, "significant" part in Lotus Eaters (film)? No) Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of interviews where he talks about himself but not much else. Closest is the GQ piece on the Winehouse hologram tour where he is mentioned a few times but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He plays young Daniel Molloy in interview with the vampire which is a significant role within the show and will likely be expanded upon as the series continues. Interview with the vampire doesn't have that many episodes a season but he's had a starring role in two of them so far. Including the episode that was tipped for EMMY nomination

https://collider.com/interview-with-the-vampire-season-2-episode-5-luke-brandon-field/

https://www.thewrap.com/interview-with-the-vampire-daniel-molloy-luke-brandon-field-interview/ Thewandaverse (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Thewandaverse. While his role is supporting, it's clearly a significant role that has garnered media coverage. I would say the same for some of his other recent projects. Starklinson (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here to agree with Thewandaverse. The character of Daniel Molloy will become more significant in the next seasons. Field is also often sent out for promotional purposes for interviews. He appeared at the Saturn Awards show as a representative of the show (Interview With the Vampire) on February 2, 2025. Sierraalphagolf (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Non notable. Father is a producer and does not star in significant roles. Most articles are not from reliable sources and the winehouse hologram piece is because of his father. Most roles are shorts. Just Isn't notable enough to be on wikipedia. 2600:1700:B2D:83A0:E1B2:18A4:5BD7:CA27 (talk) 01:03, 12 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!} 04:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of documents released by the Department of Government Efficiency

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

this article is based on X posts by Department of Government Efficiency and is thus inherently unreliable soibangla (talk) 04:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Every source is a reliable source. At the time of AfD start, the article had 14 sources, five of which are sources from X, specifically DOGE primary sources. However, the article had nine secondary reliable sources, including The New York Times, TIME Magazine, and Business Insider. Nomination reason was "article is based on X posts", which has now been proven false as there is indeed RS for this. Primary sources on X do not justify deletion, especially U.S. government sources. Posts on X by the National Weather Service / press released by the National Weather Service are often cited on weather articles. X posts can also be cited on Wikipedia, including in GA articles (ex. 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado passed GAN with a X post source). No valid reason for deletion. I am not opposed to a potential merge into the main DOGE article only if consensus falls in the direction of "delete" or "merge". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge to DOGE article) but not due to reliability. Fails WP:NLIST / WP:NOTNEWS. The documents are not discussed as a group, and even if they were would not have lasting relevance. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Department of Government Efficiency. Not seeing evidence that the documents of DOGE have been discussed as a group or a set by independent reliable sources (per WP:NLIST). The table and entries are well sourced enough to be included in the main article, but I don't see a reason for a stand alone list at this time. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every item listed has ample coverage in reliable sources. The information is something that those studying the issue of waste, will wish to access in the future. This is a notable thing, a significant change in the history of America and others affected by it. Dream Focus 17:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Are you opposed to a merge into the main DOGE article (i.e. merging the chart into the main article)? After looking at it again, currently, even as the creator of the article/chart, I am leaning more towards a merge than a full keep of the stand-alone list. Only six entries and a respectable small chart. Still notable and should remain, but maybe not as a stand-alone article. So, I just wanted to check if you would be opposed to the chart being merged into the main article, information still kept? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume since Elon Musk has stated he wants everyone to be able to see what they are doing, more information will be revealed in the near future. The list will end up being quite long, so best to have a separate article. Dream Focus 20:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALL Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Department of Government Efficiency. The effects of these document releases are unquestionably notable, but I can't find sources of these being discussed in a group. Of course it's possible that might change, in which case the concept of this separate article should be re-evaluated. But as of right now I don't see GNG for the concept overall. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Department of Government Efficiency. Perhaps the documents will be more substantive over the course of a few months, but everything here can be covered there. Conyo14 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Department of Government Efficiency: Not seeing WP:SIGCOV, best to move to parent article unless that can be established. CNC (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: please see this for an explanation of why these documents are deeply misleading and must not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. soibangla (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Girls

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

After a BEFORE on author Lee Welles, the book series (Gaia Girls), and the individual books in the series (Enter the Earth and Way of Water), I do not think this series meets NBOOK. I have searched for reviews through Google, Google Scholar, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, JSTOR, and ProQuest. I found one review on Kirkus (cited in the article) and potentially a review in Earth Action Network [81], but I don't have access to the article. Welles has passing mention in Digital Citizenship in Twenty-First-Century Young Adult Literature and an article in PW, but the first doesn't mention the books and neither provide SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are some OK news sources [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] but they are all very local which I am not sure is great for this kind of thing, especially since they call her "local author" and stuff. They're also not much in the way of commentary/reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Found a couple of reviews: This is from Children's Bookwatch, but it's a bit short. The article from EAN mentioned by Significa should be accessible here and is a bit longer. There's also a review in Refrigerated & Frozen Foods Retailer, magazine of some sort, (here) for some reason, but I have no clue whether it's legitimate or not given that it seems a bit unusual. I wouldn't count the Kirkus Review though, since it's from their Indie reviews program. Regardless, I think there's barely enough coverage here, combined with the news sources above, to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have to echo the weak keep. I found two reviews searching using my old college's database. One was what I believe to be the Faces (online community) and the other was from the Earth Action Network. I don't have access anymore, so if anyone with access to EBSCO could check, that would be great. I also found that it won a minor award. It doesn't appear to be a vanity award - it's sponsored by Idaho State University for one. It just isn't a very major award. I'm undecided if it could count towards notability or not - at the very least it's not enough to warrant a keep on that alone. There are a few outlets that have reported lists of winners (like Outdoor Magazine), so it might count towards notability. It just won't be a very strong source. I also concur on Kirkus Indie not being a usable source - it's a pay to play deal so they're not discerning in the slightest when it comes to their indie reviews. I honestly don't have a high opinion of their non-paid reviews either - DGG was very vocal about them not having the greatest editorial oversight or practices, so I try not to use them in general. (Rest in Peace, DGG.)

All in all, not enough for a slam dunk keep but enough for maybe a weak keep. The series doesn't look to have really managed to gain widespread traction, which is a shame because the books look lovely, but it's how it goes sometimes. I won't argue if the ultimate decision is to delete. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 22:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ReaderofthePack: The Earth Action Network should be accessible via TWL link I posted above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The review from Faces is from a 16-year-old, so I wouldn't count it either. Should also be accessible via TWL here: https://eds-p-ebscohost-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=41508692-60cb-4fe8-a215-6c8a083cc9c9%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=31802420&db=f6h ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the Weak Keeps.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if ever I !voted weak keep this would be it. I didn't find anything in addition to that cited above, but local sources and the couple reviews probably just about pushes this into the realm of notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BR Battle of Britain class 34073 249 Squadron

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

This individual preserved steam locomotive failed WP:GNG. I was unable to find reliable independent sources with significant coverage. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome Suzie

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

Poorly referenced article about a song; fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE yielded nothing except passing mentions like [88] (that's one of the better ones - half a sentence...). If nobody can find anything else, maybe per WP:ATD-R, redirect this to the album it appears in, Music from Big Pink? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Canada. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and discuss in that article, if needed. There does not seem to be significant information from reliable secondary sources available on specifically this song. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a lot of the material is from album reviews (albeit from 2 different albums by two different groups) but there is enough material from books to meet GNG. If not kept, sourced material needs to be merged to the two albums the song is on. Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There also used to be a review of the song by Nick DeRiso at https://somethingelsereviews.com/2013/08/22/across-the-great-divide-the-band-lonesome-suzie-from-music-from-big-pink-1968/ but that link doesn't seem to work anymore, unless someone can rescue it using Wayback or something similar. Rlendog (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a song by The Band that was covered by another very notable band. Meets the general requirements for notability, as sources show. WP:HEY -Mushy Yank. 09:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 09:56, 8 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!} 03:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after WP:HEY by Rlendog, clearly there is now enough to develop a substantive article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing. The article has bene rewritten to address my concerns; no other non-keep votes remain. Thank you Rlendog for saving this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz Can you close this per above? TIA _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I did miss @Z. Patterson redirect vote - pinging so they can reconsider it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: On second thought, Keep, because it meets WP:GNG. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jay City, Indiana

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

According to the county history, a town which was platted but which never took off. About all else I can find out about it was that there was once a Brethren church here, but it's long gone. Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as there are few, if any, reliable sources that specifically talk about this topic. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Mangoe said in the nomination, there not being any sources is not true. Uncle G (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kuhrt

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

This article has problems with WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E. Known exclusively in the context of Allen Stanford. There is no criminal notability for this man. Not opposed to redirecting there if a mention is added, since he is mentioned in RS in connection. Nothing focuses on this guy in depth. Every single source except one is a press release, and the one remaining has only brief mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Finance, and United States of America. Almost all of these sources we cannot use on BLPs so we would have to nuke it to be compliant with BLP. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Stanford Financial Group, or perhaps mention in Allen Stanford article as a co-perpetrator. The current article is a psudo-biography and should be included in the article about the crime, not exist as a separate article. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Stanford trial has been considered one of the largest financial fraud cases ever tried in federal court. Therefore, this is not a case of common criminality.

James M. Davis and Laura Pendergest-Holt were also co-defendants of Stanford and were sentenced resp. to 5 and 3 years in prison. Even their criminal notoriety depends only on the Stanford case. Both have a separate page and this fact has never been questioned.

Kuhrt, compared to Davis and Pendergest-Holt, had a more serious responsibility and was sentenced for that to 20 years in prison. In my opinion, if Davis and Pendergest-Holt deserve a separate page I believe that a fortiori Kuhrt's case also deserves one.

Moreover, in my opinion, if we add to Stanford's page (which is already very detailed) the cases of all the other co-defendants we overburden it.

Meanwhile, many news sources have been added on Kuhrt’s page reporting on his case with details about what transpired during his trial. Mediascriptor (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has been considered by who? No source says that. The sourcing is still not about Muhrt it’s about Stanford. Judging this page on its own merits we have no reason to have it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

« The Stanford trial was one of the largest financial fraud cases ever tried in federal court.^[2] »

This sentence (and relative source-CNBC) has been picked up from Judge David Hittner page.

Regarding the added sources, they are also about Kuhr’t actually. They report what the public prosecutor and a witness said about Kuhrt at the trial. Mediascriptor (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do not contain sigcov about him. Public prosecutor statements are not secondary sources they are primary. That the trial is big does not make every obscure person involved notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Public Prosecutor's and witnesses' statements, as well as some details about Kuhrt's responsabilities, do not emerge only from a press release by the prosecution office, the FBI or the government but even from many journalistic sources, which are secondary sources. A good part of the journalistic sources that talk about Stanford also talk about his accomplice Kuhrt.

Stanford, before committing a 7 billion scam, was an obscure figure. The extreme gravity of the scam made him notorious. The same is true for his accomplices, especially Kuhrt, who after Stanford received the most severe sentence (20 years).

For the rest, I repeat my question: why should this argument apply only to Kuhrt and not also to Davis and Perdergest-Holt, who had less serious responsibilities? Mediascriptor (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibilities do not matter, what matters is the quality of the sourcing. There is nothing to indicate he passes NCRIMINAL. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:12, 8 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!} 03:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Stanford Financial Group. No indication of independent notability from the crime, as evidenced by the article having essentially no biographical info on Kuhrt. Emblematic of this, Newspapers.com has no results for "Mark Kuhrt" prior to 2009. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stanford Financial Group. I find no sources that are substantially about him. In most he is name-checked. Many are short news announcements of the trial and the conviction, but again he is named but I don't find much information about him. Lamona (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants Canada

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

Searching under new name and former name"Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association" yielded very little in google news. A lot of globalnewswire hits which is a PR site. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out that Canada Business: The Portable Encyclopedia for Doing Business with Canada, which came up on a quick, and failed, search for good sources, is not in fact an encyclopaedia. ☺ I agree with the nominator. Lots of directories of lobbyists, lots of lobbying publications; no independent in-depth descriptions of the specific lobbyists, other than inclusion in laundry lists. Uncle G (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is hard to sort through all the bad sourcing, but I didn't find anything that would establish notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AJ Vaage

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an actor and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for actors or filmmakers. The attempted notability claim here is an ensemble (not solo) win at the Canadian Comedy Awards, which would be fine if the article were properly sourced but is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG. But the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (e.g. directory entries, film credits sourced to the self-published catalogues of film festivals that screened them rather than notability-building coverage about them, etc.), alongside a couple of news articles that briefly namecheck Vaage's existence without being about him in any non-trivial sense, none of which is support for notability.
There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a WP:SPA named "Skitsandplays".
Nothing here is "inherently" notable without better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions (That's So Weird! and Y llegaron de noche). If the first is judged much more important than the latter, the page could be redirected to its cast section. Coverage to verify the first and expand includes https://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/that-s-so-weird-parody-draws-the-tweens/article_82bed3d3-617d-5f6e-8b9e-7ee1b92d2314.html (on the page); https://www.insidehalton.com/things-to-do/thats-so-weirds-aj-vaage-does-improv-battle-in-oakville/article_c8858f5f-cac8-5eb7-bc21-89ee2975b42b.html (based on an interview) Coverage for verification of the second includes: https://www.chicmagazine.com.mx/personajes/y-llegaron-de-noche-actores-y-personajes-en-la-serie, https://oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/gossip/eugenio-derbez-hace-reir-en-dos-idiomas-con-y-llegaron-de-noche-13133549 etc. -Mushy Yank. 01:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An actor does not automatically get over NACTOR just because it's possible to show cursory verification that roles were had — we have to see sources that are substantively about him and his performances, not just sources that glancingly namecheck his existence, because just having roles is not a "get out of WP:GNG" card. But three of those four links are just cursory namechecks, not substantive coverage, and the only one that does anything more than just briefly glance off his existence comes from a suburban community pennysaver, and thus isn't enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only substantive source he's got. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial independent sources. He is named as the producer on various short films, and was a member of an ensemble that won an award, but has not individually won a major award. Lamona (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^ S. Butterworth, III. Eddy-current losses in cylindrical conductors, with special applications to the alternating current resistances of short coils, Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society A (1 January 1922).
^ Cohn, Scott (2019-02-20). "Victims of that other Ponzi scheme—Allen Stanford's—say they have been short-changed". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-06-21.

[1] S. Butterworth, III. Eddy-current losses in cylindrical conductors, with special applications to the alternating current resistances of short coils, Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society A (1 January 1922).

[2] Cohn, Scott (2019-02-20). "Victims of that other Ponzi scheme—Allen Stanford's—say they have been short-changed". CNBC. Retrieved 2023-06-21.

[1]

[2]