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 18	February 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

James Gunn's unrealized projects

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

I've been contemplating about doing this AfD for a bit now, and seen no improvements to this list in that time. Following in the footsteps of relatively recent decisions for similar subjects at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cimino's unrealized projects and Talk:Christopher Nolan/Archive 2#Proposed merge of Christopher Nolan's unrealized projects into Christopher Nolan, I am proposing this stub list have its main notable content be merged into the subject article at James Gunn. Some of these could fit nicely into the James Gunn § Other media section, while others, such as the Ravagers and Drax/Mantis spin-offs and a The Suicide Squad sequel, were never actually in development and can be dropped. Works like The Belko Experiment and Coyote vs. Acme were made, though Belko was ultimately made by someone else and CvA has yet to be released (if ever). Others are just very brief involvements or pitches that never came into fruition, and are almost just trivial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, Lists, and Missouri. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per WP:LISTN, which says that as long as the subjects in the list are described as "a group or set" in 2-3 reliable sources, it warrants having an article of its own. Here is 1, 2, and, why not, 3 ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ZanderAlbatraz1145 and per WP:LISTN. The Film Creator (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should echo some points from the debates I linked to above, specifically, Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion and I'll add Wikipedia is not a directory or housing space for trivial details. Just because a list can be produced for a topic, that does not necessarily mean that it should exist. And LISTN is not a one-for-all saying that any list goes. There is also WP:SALAT which addresses the trivia concerns. Some of this content is just a WP:FORK from Gunn's article that can easily be implemented there, as I suggested. Do we really need a separate list for works he never made? Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think whatever info regarding unmade projects from Gunn's main page should be ported to the Unrealized projects page then, in that case. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that third source from Slashfilm only discusses Gunn's unmade horror films, not every unmade work. Coyote vs. Acme and Belko should NOT be moved out from Gunn's article because they have been made, just not as originally intended. These projects are still very minute compared to what he's actually made and can be easily collected in his article where they are more likely to be noticed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed as a set in multiple reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: even the page as it is clearly shows this meets WP:NLIST with reliable sources discussing the topic as a set. -Mushy Yank. 08:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, just having some low-tier sites for a brief lead introduction and not actually discussing the specifics in the individual sections warrants any topic list to be made? Just because it can be made does not mean it must exist. Most of these sections are one-to-two sentence long statements that can easily be integrated into Gunn's article and are not as notable for their own dynamic list compared to works Gunn has actually made. It is odd having an article for what he has not made and not one for his entire filmography of made works (which counts more to such a topic that what has gone unmade). This just all seems backwards to me, by prioritizing and giving preferential treatment to things that ultimately didn't happen. I will note that Zander and Film Creator are substantial contributors to this list. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In a boolean answer? Yes. If you want to propose a merge on the talk page(s), that's not an AfD discussion and I have no opinion. But if the question is "Per policy, must this article be merged, redirected, or deleted?" then no, there's not a policy demand that it no longer exist as a standalone article. I hope that's not splitting hairs too fine, but I see a difference in the venues' charters. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's a good answer and it makes sense. (I'd much rather prefer bluntness than beating around the bush.) In prior AfDs, I have not experienced or seen any issue in a merge opinion, so that is why I felt it would be passable in this instance. I will still let this run its natural course, but if it closes as keep, I will propose a formal merge at Talk:James Gunn to weigh more opinions on the matter, as I presume this list is not as watched as the main article. I do appreciate your understanding here, I was just taken aback by the sheer willingness to keep a list based on one loose policy alone, even when its content does not merit much. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Wolfenden

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources are all from his employer, brief mentions, or otherwise unreliable. CNMall41 (talk) 23:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Radio, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very questionable sources, couldn't find anything myself to indicate notability. Kylemahar902 (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing any sufficiently independent, reliable and secondary sources to reach WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stratellite

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

Article about prototype, never-commercialized product of now-defunct company created in 2004 "after reading Slashdot article". Company seems to have been a mix of "startup business venture" and "scheme to defraud investors". What things a Web search turns up appear to be either regurgitation of press releases from the company, or stuff copied from this WP article. No news mentions post-2000s. Fails WP:V, WP:NOTABILITY. Slowking Man (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Technology, and Aviation. Slowking Man (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For context, I disputed this PROD since it did not appear right procedural. As I linked in my edit summary, AP appears to have covered it "Floating an idea: Replace ugly towers with high-flying blimps". IgelRM (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence this passes WP:NCORP with WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond a brief flurry of PR-driven coverage around its launch. The article itself is highly speculative and fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Hill, Indiana

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

From time to time, the eye is caught when researching these things on the maps and on aerial photographs. In this case, on GMaps, it is the post-industrial wasteland just north of this spot that is the ruins of the Marble Hill Nuclear Power Plant, which project was abandoned shy of completion back in 1984 and progressively demolished over the next thirty years (assuming they ever finished, as the article is unclear on that). Marble Hill the town, however, was and is a complete non-entity, a 4th class post office and nothing more, as far as I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was a quarry for — Be prepared for a shock! — marble, on bluffs overlooking the Ohio River, that was abandoned in the 19th century because of quality problems; per Hendricks 1889, pp. 154, 156 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHendricks1889 (help). There are a couple of old 19th century sources mentioning the quarrying, and the odd geological report from the Indiana Department of Geology and Natural Resources. One gives the whole game away in its title. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Owen, David Dale (1853). Geological Report on the Marble Hill Quarry: Situated Thirty Miles Above Louisville, Ky., on the Ohio River, in Jefferson County, Indiana, and Compared with Twelve Other Building Stones in Use in the United States. Louisville: Morton & Griswold.
- Hendricks, W. P. (1889). "Jefferson County". Biographical and Historical Souvenir for the Counties of Clark, Crawford, Harrison, Floyd, Jefferson, Jennings, Scott, and Washington, Indiana. Chicago: John M. Gresham Company. pp. 145–219. ISBN 9781548571665. (Biographical and Historical Souvenir for the Counties of Clark, Crawford, Harrison, Floyd, Jefferson, Jennings, Scott, and Washington, Indiana at the Internet Archive)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies paying scrip dividends

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

This is more of an old stock brochure than an encyclopedia article. I question the viability of this list as a navigation aid, if people were searching for companies on Wikipedia by whether or not they pay scrip dividends this list would be a lot longer. I think this falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, and Lists. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Llanwchaiarn, Ceredigion

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

Appears to be an alternate spelling of Llanllwchaiarn, Ceredigion. Nothing to merge into that page. SlimyGecko7 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make the usual point about how AFD is not for trivial mergers of alternative titles. But this page was created by a sockpuppeteer, and I cannot find evidence that this alternative spelling is actually real outwith Wikipedia and mirrors. The sockpuppeteer has given us fakery. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Specialist Contractors Council

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

The one source provided is primary. Almost all the google news hits are from the non-independent construction industry press. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Comedy Guide

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

Website lacks notability; significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Refs provided are either from subject's own coverage or mere mentions (related to comments made on BCG podcasts) – no significant coverage *about* the website from reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Websites, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanoj mishra

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

Recreation of salted title: Sanoj Mishra, which was salted back in 2018. Article needs to be moved to the correctly capitalized title if kept. No opinion on the current state of the article, though it appears to be decently sourced. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And rename Sanoj Mishra. Meets WP:DIRECTOR with at least 2-3 feature films that received coverage. "Salted" in 2018? The majority of his films were made later. So that the recreation was perfectly acceptable. The article needs cleanup.. -Mushy Yank. 22:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Sanoj Mishra: Although the article was already deleted, the majority of Sanoj Mishra's directorial work, including films such as Gandhigiri, Ram Ki Janmabhoomi and The Diary of West Bengal, has occurred after the deletion in 2018. These films have received coverage in reliable sources (as evidenced by existing references in the article), demonstrating notability under WP:DIRECTOR. The existence of these post-2018 films, which were not factors in the original deletion, justifies a reassessment of his notability. The article is still a work in progress and needs further improvement, particularly in expanding his biography with more reliable sources. However, the existing sources and filmography are sufficient to meet the basic criteria for inclusion. Previous deletions should not impede a current, objective assessment of his notability based on his recent work. Therefore, I recommend keeping the article and renaming it to the correctly capitalized "Sanoj Mishra".

MH-wiki2025 (talk) 08:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Alexander

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

Many of the sources are written by the subject. Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. What remains does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Truthnope (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Other sources are links to her Ted Talk or "Best of" lists that include movies for which she was screenwriter. Doesn’t this meet the criteria for filmmakers § 3? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that counts as being significant or well-known. The article says of Alexander's Memories of Christmas, "This film has been named on several “Best of Hallmark Christmas movies” lists, including “10 Must-See Hallmark Movies that Celebrate Diversity and Inclusion.” These are listicles, not significant coverage. That criterion also requires that the work or body of work "must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I wouldn't count these "Best of" lists as reviews. Truthnope (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 11:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 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!} 21:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem

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

Despite major improvements since it was moved to mainspace I see nothing here to show she passes WP:NPROF in particular nor WP:BIO / WP:GNG more generally. I am unable to return it to draft unilaterally under WP:DRAFTOBJECT. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE I checked all the criteria for WP:NPROF and I don't see how she meets them. At first glance this seems impressive but when I check her university page, despite being chair of philosophy department in humanities at University of Pretoria, I am not seeing anything like an endowed chair, chief editor of a major journal, any standout prizes or honors, and very few academic papers.--FeralOink (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although not the chief editor, she is an Associate Editor Science and Engineering Ethics (Springer) 2021-

I believe her inclusion in the list of 100 Brilliant women in AI ethics can be regarded as an honor.

Can she assessed to check whether she passes WP:BLP?

Thanks Etowusu (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Etowusu: I've reverted your move to draft, because you cannot move a page while it is subject to an AfD. Please do not move this page again. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Philosophy, South Africa, and Finland. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: H-index of 6 is pretty low even in a low-citation field like psychology, and I can't find any GNG. However I think she could meet WP:NACADEMIC C3 via full membership in the International Academy for the Philosophy of Science (AIPS).[1] InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete: Not enough impact for C1 of WP:NPROF. The 100 brilliant women award does not satisfy C2. C3 is closer; I confess that I had never heard of the IAPS, but it looks like it was founded by a group of giants in this field and its members are elected (see here). However, I cannot determine whether or not membership is truly prestigious, and I see that she is a corresponding member - that may not be as prestigious as being a full member. Since I can't tell, I am using it as one indicator of academic notability but not as fully satisfying it. C4-C6 don't apply. Her work for UNESCO and for GC REAIM indicate at least partial satisfaction of C7 of WP:NPROF but I think it's not enough. Editorial board membership, or service as an associate editor, is not the same as actually being the editor and does not satisfy C8. I think this is a strong faculty member but I am not yet seeing their work as being broadly impactful in the field. Perhaps in 5-10 years the situation will be different on one or more of the criteria, and I think that if the page is deleted it should be done "softly." Qflib (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just double-checked because I thought I remembered she was listed as a full member in AIPS, and we're both right because there's a discrepancy: her profile on the AIPS website says she corresponding, but the AIPS membership list says full. I can't find any reliable independent sources which could clarify one way or the other. For what it's worth, it looks like corresponding members are non-voting but elected in the same fashion. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just wanted to note that the page was moved to draftspace by the author while this AfD was ongoing. I've reverted their move and restored the article's original title. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 15 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!} 21:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice, Through the Looking

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

Present sourcing is all directly from film festivals, involved persons/production companies, social media, and one database page. Found no independent coverage or any sign that the listed awards are notable. Seems surprising given the involvement of Vanessa Redgrave, but even that is no guarantee. Opening this to AfD rather than PROD on the hope that another editor may find sources that I couldn't. Otherwise, this seems safely deletable. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Germany, and England. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created by a user with a history of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland-related drafts which have gone unapproved, and one article which was PRODded a year ago but saved. Admittedly, that one doesn't look much more promising than this one does, and I may have to propose another AfD for it later on if I get a chance. Seems like typical SPA issues. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to Films_and_television_programmes_based_on_Alice_in_Wonderland#Theatrical_films~~: (where it is listed). A standard alternative to deletion when cast is notable and the director has no page. Mildly significant nominations and screenings. -Mushy Yank. 22:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me I guess. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep per the reviews identified below. Thanks a lot @Somebodyidkfkdt:.-Mushy Yank. 10:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG through reviews here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: Those should do just fine. Thank you @Somebodyidkfkdt. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Bogart

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

Unsourced BLP. Article on a lesser known TV producer. This is clearly an autobiography since creator shares the same name as the article's subject. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't show much, and I can't find any reliable sources that mention the subject in question. Creator has added unsourced information related to the subject on several articles, and there's no way to verify if this information is true or not. Fails WP:NPRODUCER. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Photography, Management, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources in the article, and I couldn't find any either. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me See Ya Move

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

fails WP:NSONG. quick Google search showed nothing but lyric websites. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, and Music. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 20:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to Lumi Athena. Song not notable, but article on singer exists. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haixu Zhang

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

I'm new to this but I really don't think this person is notable enough for an entire article. He's 1 of 2 Chinese cubers to have an article and the other one is the current best cuber BY FAR, and he's just someone who used to have a couple records in 4x4 a couple decades ago. He's probably a pretty cool guy when you get to know him, though. Yoshikid64 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and China. Shellwood (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strait Regional Centre for Education

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. (non-admin closure)‎ Kylemahar902 (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~I don't think the existence of a school board in rural Nova Scotia is enough to establish notability, unfortunately. One of many unsourced articles in its class.~~ Upon further reflection, I shouldn't have sent this to AfD, especially without attempting to cite a policy or guideline by which it should be deleted. I'll find a way to clean it up myself later. Hope it's okay that I chose to withdraw this, given there's been no discussion. Kylemahar902 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Schools. Kylemahar902 (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 19 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.

Nelson Elemi

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. Sources are bunch of dependent pieces that fail the GNG criteria. They’re either WP:DOGBITESMAN or WP:MILL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Li Dalong

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

Li Dalong does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. I have nominated it per WP:DEL#REASON 8. I have done a search for references and found none other than stat websites. Thank you. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sportspeople. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Silver medal at the Asian Games would, actually, pass WP:NATH. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per above, does pass WP:NATH. That being said, this article and all other sportspeople stubs like it are practically pointless as they lack any real significant content that you couldn't get off of a chart. I'm not sure if just blindly citing notability guidelines is in the spirit of building an encyclopedia, but I'm also not sure how I really feel about pruning all these sportspeople stubs. Manually getting rid of all of them through AfD would take decades, which makes me think it's kind of a waste of our time. This is something that should be brought up for discussion eventually. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per expansion I made, plenty of references available online for example this interview with the China News Service: [2]

To respond to User:Kylemahar902, I think the answer to content-less articles is to add content to them. I've seen dozens of NATH-passing articles in AfD over the last few years and for each one I can think of without exception, when you look hard enough there's always some prose-based coverage out there. The point of NATH isn't to be a lower standard but rather an indicator that coverage definitely exists if you look for it. --Habst (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Shah

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

Courtesy nomination at the article subject's request per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE who considers himself and the article about him of low importance and notability. See VRT 2025021910007051. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of learned societies

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

Indiscriminate collection of links to Wikidata, a user-generated database, which is not a reliable source. There is more to say about this particular list, but I am not going there because that would likely just distract from the main point. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Organizations, and Lists. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. We should not be importing content from Wikidata, and that is the entirety of this list. It does not meet our standards for verifiability through reliable sourcing. And even for the entries that come with sources from Wikidata, they are of dubious independence from their subjects, generally formatted badly and unfixable by Wikipedia editing as the bad formatting comes from Wikidata. This should go as well for List of learned societies in the United States and List of learned societies in the United States, which have exactly the same issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems to me that there are two issues. First does the list meet the criteria of WP:NLIST and second is it a useful thing for navigation per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. On the latter point, this is a long list of wikilinks which is a recognised form of navigation, other examples include List of banks (alphabetical). Returning to the former point, the question is whether the list is of notable things to the extent that having the page helps with a user navigating the encyclopedia. On this point I'm currently undecided. JMWt (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So, returning to think about this some more. WP:NLIST states One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source further nothing that the entirety of the list does not need to be noted just the group of things. So it would appear that a simple way to establish if a list of learned societies is notable is to see if reliable sources consider them as a group. Here are some references that do that 1 and 2 and 3

Clearly Learned society is a notable idea and reliable sources have considered them as a group. It also seems likely that a list sorted by country consisting of many blue wikilinks would be useful for navigation - for example by a reader wanting to see which learned society exists in their country.

JMWt (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kain Bond

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

Fails WP:GNG. V.short pro career. No SIGCOV evident. Canary757 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 18:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayana: Part 1

AfDs for this article:

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

Filming just started and release date is not until November 2026 (21 months). Fails WP:NFF. Nothing notable about the production and sources are mainly announcements or otherwise unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Would suggest protection on the title if this is deleted as its clear that consensus will not be respected. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Highly-anticipated production, coverage on production (cast, development, filming, etc) makes it notable imv, precisely per WP:NFF (see my !vote during last AfD not so long ago, and even the page itself). Even if the film was shelved now, it would still be notable in my opinion. Absolutely opposed to deletion. A redirect or draftification can be considered but they're not necessary and would understandably be reverted at some point. -Mushy Yank. 21:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this absolutely. A film project of this magnitude deserves healthy edits, and it would frankly be quiet a disgrace if we act irrationally, and resort to cheap control tactics. I recommend that we keep on improving the article, instead of nominating it for deletion, or protecting the page just as to satiate the need to control the space. Sribrahma (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 21:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think that "filming just started" and, on the contrary, my understanding is that filming for the first part is more or less wrapped and the film is now in a long phase of post-production. It's filming for part 2 (no article about Ramayana: Part 2 yet, :D) that is about to start). See for example: https://www.movietalkies.com/news/ramayana-ranbir-kapoor-body-double-8706209 (this link is only for information not to show the production is notable).-Mushy Yank. 22:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the filming. I read that filming began January 19, but that is for the second part as you pointed out. Still curious where the press is that makes the production notable for a film that is almost two years away from being released. Looking for press that isn't churnalism or based on announcements from the filmmakers. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging prior participants from the AfD that closed two weeks ago - @Nathannah:, @BD2412:, @RangersRus:, and @Liz: (Mushy Yank already voted above).--CNMall41 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to draft I'm still not seeing improvements from the original version at all and it still needs time in draft development. Nathannah • (chatter) 23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Still no improvement from before and I will recommend to put a move lock. RangersRus (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. My opinion is unchanged, as absolutely nothing has happened that would change it. BD2412 T 01:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filming for Part 1 has already been completed. The pre-production of this film has been long ongoing, since 2017. It is a highly anticipated production, and it is a long project requiring extensive post-production, which is why it will be taking so long to release. I recommend moving the space to draft, but deletion should be out of question totally. Sribrahma (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? It was moved to draft two weeks ago already and you moved it right back out. This is a speedy candidate but I only sent it to AfD so we can get protection on the creation should it not survive the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MushyYank's reasoning. Article needs general clean-up but meets the notability criteria for inclusion (chiefly due to it being the most expensive Indian film made, and that filming has already been completed). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is still required. Can you provide the significant coverage? Looking for in-depth coverage as opposed to the press releases or churnalism or announcements from the filmmakers. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aden Governorate

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

Ever since I joined Wikipedia, I've been trying to find the difference between Aden Governorate and Aden and today I am happy to announce that they are the exact same thing. Aden covers everything in this article except for the governor assassination part which should be merged and this article should be redirected to Aden.

This deletion would make it consistent with the Sanaa article which also includes the first-level subdivision 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the article at Aden agreed with you, I would support. But nothing in Aden or Aden Governorate says they are coterminous or a consolidated entity. Do you have a source that they are the exact same thing? --Golbez (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is I didn't find a source that shows them as two separate entities 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez Plus the Aden article does agree with me. Just a few hours ago before @2dk's copyedit the lead used to say: Aden is divided into eight districts: Tawahi, Mualla, Crater, Khur Maksar, Al Mansura, Dar Sad, Sheikh Othman, and Al Buraiqa. (Those are the districts of the Aden governorate which implies that they're the same thing) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source saying they're the same. We have sourcing saying the governorate exists; you need sourcing saying it doesn't. Listing things on two articles does not qualify. --Golbez (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather, simply saying that there's similar info on both doesn't work. That might be a reason normally to merge articles, but subdivisions are considered inherently notable, so that doesn't work in this case. I can find several official bodies through a google search using the term "Aden Governorate," so I think we need some kind of affirmative sourcing that the governorate either does not exist, or is the same as the city. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: Just FYI I want this to be merged and redirected to Aden. Aden Governorate is a thing, the same thing as Aden and I'd like to see the source that says that they are not 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when one article is mostly just info from another article, they can be merged, but since governorates are inherently article-worthy, in this case the solution is to build out the deficient article. From what I can tell, the City of Aden and Aden Governorate are separate actual entities, and therefore, get separate articles. --Golbez (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A city isn't the same as a governorate. Plus their areas (according to their articles) are different: 760 vs. 1114 km², respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. This United Nations Human Settlements Programme Aden City Profile article clearly distinguishes between them: "Aden is the largest city of southern Yemen. It is also the administrative centre of the Aden governorate." Also this Berghof Foundation page: "[The Aden Governorate] is home to Yemen's main commercial port, Aden Port". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend I've read both documents and did not find a single instance where they showed any difference between the city and the governorate. In fact, the UNHabitat document "Aden City" showed nothing but the governorate. Implying that they're the same thing. This is just like the Greenland article case where it is both about the adminstrative region and the Island itself (Btw thank you for that document, it will be helpful in expanding the Aden article) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind? I gave you the exact quotes. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend The UN quote is vague and the paper uses a map of the governorate when talking about the city and the Bergof foundation talks about the Aden port and not the Aden city... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The UN quote is vague? How? Is Aden the "administrative centre" of ... itself? Don't be deliberately obtuse. It is what it is. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, we simply have to put the onus on you: Do you have sourcing that says the city of Aden is the same as the governorate? Not an "implication," a plain statement of fact. If so, supply. If not, then I think this discussion has run its course. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zid Aliasgar

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claim here is that he's been secretary of a political party's local chapter in an individual district, with no indication that he's ever held any office that would count as "inherently" notable per NPOL -- but this does not cite any WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him to establish notability for other reasons, and instead is cited entirely to a mixture of primary sources that are not support for notability, and tangential verification of facts in sources that fail to mention his name at all in conjunction with them. (The only one, further, that does mention his name does so only in the context of being the credited photographer of the article's illustration — which is not support for notability either — rather than the subject of the coverage.)
It also warrants note that the creator is repeatedly trying to file the article in redlinked categories that don't even exist, as well as inappropriate categories that it wouldn't belong in (e.g. filing him in Category:Bridges, despite the fact that that Zid Aliasgar is not personally a literal bridge.) And while that isn't a deletion rationale per se, it does suggest that there's a WP:CIR issue here.
Nothing stated in this article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of coverage in reliable sources independent of himself. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Malaysia. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Lincolnshire

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

This is basically a local government planning construct, collectively determined by the City of Lincoln and North Kesteven and West Lindsey. It appears to have very little coverage outside of that local government grouping. The article, which looks closer to a list than an article, seems unclear as to what it is describing. The opening sentence, "Central Lincolnshire is the region of Lincolnshire in the East Midlands, England", seems very unclear to me. Then, everything listed, roads, railways, urban areas etc., is already covered in multiple other articles. The sourcing is mostly NOMIS/citypopulation.de data all of which could be moved into the relevant articles if wanted. KJP1 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could we (slender) merge/redirect this into Lincoln, England#Built-up_area? There are already a couple of sentences for the built-up area with a redirect in, to which one could add a list of additional areas in [3] using that as a source. Alternatively, Lincolnshire#Urban_areas, with the same brief mention. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case I forget to return, happy to redirect/slender merge to any target in England that gains consensus. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just found a subheading Lincolnshire#Central Lincolnshire with a single uncited sentence. This case study,[4] is independent of the councils involved in the organisation's set up and provides significant coverge of this definition of "Central Lincolnshire". There are other definitions and many uses of the term "central Lincolnshire" in a geographical context. Rupples (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That (the subheading) seems to be in entirely the wrong place in the Lincolnshire article. Given the existence of Lincolnshire, Illinois -- to which I doubt this phrase ever refers -- I think we would be better deciding on a sensible target within England, rather than deleting it altogether and leaving the reader to the vagaries of the search engine. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lincolnshire seems the obvious target. If we moved the section to Governance - which it formerly isn’t but it’s close - would that be a home for this? I still don’t think we’ll end up merging much as it’s basically, roads which run through Lincolnshire, biggish places in Lincolnshire, etc. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties#Governance has Combined Authorities or partnerships, which may cover this. Rupples (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stone, Indiana

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

This actually has a short section in the county history; the problem is that it's rather boosterish and seems to imply that, well, we have a couple of businesses here at Stone Station, so surely it will develop into a proper town. That implies that it's not really a proper town yet, and while one business (the elevator/co-op) is still there, essentially nothing else is; even the rail line is gone. So not sure how to document this, if at all. Another source might be helpful. As it is, it looks like a former rail shipping point. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if the Stone name came via the owner of Gen. Asahel Stone Mansion, who according to the NRHP documentation was a shareholder in the Richmond and Grand Rapids Railroad, although I cannot directly connect the bigwig to the station. The county history does say "Small unincorporated town and station on Richmond & Grand Rapids Railroad" but in the next breath says "small station on the Richmond & Fort Wayne Railroad". I can definitely see a Stone stop in the contemporary railway guides, between Winchester and Ridgeville, although the name in the guides was the Grand Rapids and Indiana Railroad, operating the Cincinnatti, Richmond & Fort Wayne Railroad. The county history does very bluntly hint that we should document this in the context of the failed railroad in some way. But our documentation of the railroad does not even extend to decent redirects right now, let alone discussions of the stations. There's a Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/ICC valuations/Cincinnati, Richmond and Fort Wayne Railroad that indicates that someone might get around to improving matters in a decade or so.
I'm not sure how a 2 sentence and an infobox full of GNIS rubbish article helps anyone in the meanwhile, especially since the use of the present tense and "community" is wrong in the first sentence and the second sentence isn't in accordance with its own source.
Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given by Uncle G. Simply not a community. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rushikesh Hiwrale

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

Formerly PRODed, PROD tag removed after article had one source added to it, said source is Spotify. Appears to not be notable, article creator formerly had this rejected at AFC, and there may be COI editing involved based on article creator's username. Sarsenet (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Sarsenet (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just for promotional purposes. There is no single source out there for this musician except music download websites. none of their social media handles has up to a thousand followers. CSD is more appropriate for this. Mekomo (talk) 12:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). I think it fits CSD, there is no real notability assertion, however since several people contributed I think it's good to let the discussion run its course. -- Luk ^talk 12:38, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Exactly, and I have placed an A7 tag on it.Junbeesh (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an obvious attempted promotion for a non-notable beginner. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no sources that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Nobody (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parents Opposed To Pot

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

Article about an organization, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, every organization is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and has to show passage of WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH -- but this is referenced entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy coverage in real media shown at all, and claims absolutely nothing about the group that would be "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no evidence of significant coverage. Ligaturama (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the creator of the article and did add two notability sources to the article yesterday. I'm also still editing the article, adding relevant information, so would be grateful if you could wait for more feedback before coming to any decision. Horsechestnut (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately neither of these sources count towards the notability guidelines WP:GNG or WP:NORG. An interview on a talk show is a primary and non-independent source, and dangerousminds.net is an unreliable blog (also the blog piece doesn't even cover the organization, just one of their publications). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Si Ri Panya International School

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

Not meeting WP:NSCHOOL; directories and primary self published sources Insillaciv (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly Quiet

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

Not notable video game; not reliable reviews, covering etc. Insillaciv (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. – The Grid (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are just reviews of the trailer, which isn't quite enough. Probably TOOSOON Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm one of the developers of Deadly Quiet, and I wanted to provide some clarification based on the discussion here. The game has received significant coverage from major publications like IGN, Vice, GameSpot, and Bloody Disgusting, AUTOMATION MEDIA, not as paid promotion, but as independent journalism. While Deadly Quiet is upcoming, it has already gained substantial industry recognition, being featured prominently across gaming media. Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize independent coverage, and the references cited meet that standard. Given the widespread media attention and player engagement, I believe the article meets notability criteria. I appreciate the discussion and respect Wikipedia's guidelines, but I hope this clarification helps in making a fair decision. Thanks for your time! Abuld Rafy (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarba Paul Cornel

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

Not notable game developer; sources are not reliable and are more associated with the game he worked on. Insillaciv (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Romania. – The Grid (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random person. — Biruitorul ^Talk 06:48, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Families

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

WP:TRUMPCRUFT. This very uncommon term that Trump used a few times during his first presidency deserves a single-sentence mention at Illegal immigration to the United States and crime#“Trump Hypothesis” and 2016 Presidential election, not a dedicated article. Badbluebus (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Crime, Politics, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this irredeemable mess into Illegal immigration to the United States and crime. It's synthesis standing on top of a soapbox with a fork in hand, screaming Will Somebody Please Think of the children, but written by ChatGPT. Bearian (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is not notable. 201.226.200.75 (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

How is it not notable? 2601:45:4001:FAA0:4D1F:7EE6:52C0:63E9 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom; another talking point that was long abandoned once Stephen Miller found a new thing to jingle the keys in front of. Nathannah • (chatter) 23:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur D. Yaghjian

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and WP:GNG. The article subject believes he is a nonnotable person who should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025012410006294. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage appears limited to scientific publications. We should honor the wishes of the subject in this case. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Rhode Island. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Tagging Myxomatosis57. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems a pretty clear pass of WP:PROF to me and the article looks uncontroversial. Is there a particular reason given for the subject to request deletion? Espresso Addict (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Espresso Addict, his awards are a clear pass of WP:NPROF#C3 and his citations pass #C1 since he is sole author on many. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IEEE Fellow ("Life Fellow" but that just means fellow+older) is a clear pass of WP:PROF notability. The subject's modesty is virtuous, but not a convincing reason to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David. However, the Wikipedia article is not an accurate representation of my personal or professional biography. I tried to revise the article but Wikipedia would not allow me to do that. Therefore, after great effort to figure out how to do get in touch with the deletion editor, I requested that my article be deleted. Please do not try to prevent my article from being deleted, as well intended as you may be. Arthur Yaghjian Arthur D. Yaghjian (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly arguing either way here, but one possible solution would be for someone with relevant expertise, perhaps David Eppstein or Ldm1954, to action Arthur D. Yaghjian's edit request, as an alternative to deletion. Looking at the edit history, it looks as if the edits were primarily rejected on copyright grounds rather than for conflict of interest. I have noticed that the editors responding to COI edit requests of late have become less and less inclined to honour even the most vanilla of changes and I can see why this might lead the subject of an article to request deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might suggest to ADY that (from my experience as the subject of a Wikipedia article) it generally works much better to suggest (on the article talk page) the facts that should be updated, rather than suggesting the wording of how to present those facts. Doing so sidesteps both the issue of copying copyrighted text that seems to have tripped up the requests in this case, and the issue of promotional rather than encyclopedic wording that often arises in other cases and is difficult to avoid when writing about yourself. One might also, following Burns, take the existence of an article describing how one appears to others as a blessing, rather than insisting that only one's own view of oneself can be presented. It does not make me sympathetic to a deletion request like this one to see a subject who would be happy for Wikipedia to host an autobiography but is unwilling to allow a biography to be edited and worded by others. Every once in a while I look at the article about myself, shake my head at its haphazard state, and speak to myself the magic incantation: someone else's problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like David, I look at the article on me and shudder at some of the errors, then move on. While I am a sympathetic to the desire to have an accurate version, since those prior edits are blocked (for me) I can make no comments about what might be improved. Notability is very clear as I voted before. Can someone make the prior history more available. (It seems it might have been a copyright violation from https://2024.apsursi.org/master_class.php, that page being very peacocky.) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear WP:PROF pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Insillaciv (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Although I'm sympathetic to the subject's WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, he clearly passes WP:NPROF. We can honour his wishes by reviewing the article and correcting the errors he identified.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's impossible for "normal" editors to assess what's wrong with the existing article because all of Yaghjian's edits have been revdelled, and the talk-page request doesn't say explicitly what's wrong with the article. The aim of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is to respect the privacy wishes of people whose wiki-notability is very borderline. We can't apply it willy-nilly, because we'd lose all articles about modest engineers who are embarrassed to have an article, and also all articles about un-modest engineers who won't tolerate an article that's not on their terms (I'm absolutely not commenting that either category applies in the current case). It's already hard enough to document engineers and engineering here, because they don't attract as much media attention as Social Influencers and Bollywood movies. I would prefer not to delete without pressing reasons, and I'd much prefer to see discussion of how to ensure the article is accurate and reflective of his career, than to delete it. We just shouldn't delete as an alternative to fixing the content, which is what this feels like. Elemimele (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Aliant High Speed Internet

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

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crosswalk Project

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

Not notable defunct web app; github as the main source Insillaciv (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't explain use of the project or its assets at all for a regular web user or Wikipedia reader, much less in simple language. Nathannah • (chatter) 23:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Borenstein

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

Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search only shows primary sources. BilletsMauves^€500 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep How is that book prize nominations are primary sources? Professors unlike sportsmen and movie star do not frequent newspapers to search GNG. They are judged for their work by peers. This one has four prizes for scholarly books. More than enough for notability. --Altenmann >talk 15:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see it that way, I still don't see anything that would make him pass WP:NPROF. And one independent (?) source isn't enough to pass GNG. BilletsMauves^€500 17:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I feel sorry for Wikipedia, you, and professor, in this order. --Altenmann >talk 19:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a damn about how you feel, keep that stuff to yourself. BilletsMauves^€500 21:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Russia, New York, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JSTOR lists many reviews of multiple books by him: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. This gives him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR, and (because they are in-depth reliably published and independent sources about Borenstein's work) an easy pass of WP:GNG. Whatever WP:BEFORE the nominator tried was apparently ineffective, because they should have found these. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof and WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR by way of book reviews, which amounts to passing WP:PROF in a book-oriented field of scholarship. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Above

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

Non-notable. Article is a summary of a book about SES (company) which was written by(/for) SES. I cannot find sources to show that this book is notable, and I do not see that it meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. The only coverage I have found besides that from SES itself is in the form of two reviews (both already referenced in the article). One is a very short review from a personal blog [19], and the other is a TechRadar article [20] which appeared in the Wotsat column, to which the authors of the book were contributors ("Written by industry-leading journalists and Wotsat contributors [...]"). Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Television, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as failing NBOOK. Couldn't find any other potential sources. Even Higher and Beyond Frontiers should probably go too. Astaire (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per Astaire above, I am also nominating the following articles for deletion. I have WP:BEFOREd these and am unable to find sources to determine notability:

Pink Bee (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find anything either - I'm debating between a redirect to the Astra page or a delete. SES and its Astra satellites seem to be pretty well known enough that Springer decided to hire people to write about them, however they're not so well known that I would anticipate someone really seeking this book out on Wikipedia. In other words, redirects are cheap, but if it's not something people would plausibly search for, then there's no point in having it. I'm leaning towards a delete for these. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how many people would be searching for the books, but of the three I think Beyond Frontiers is more worthy of a redirect than the others because it appears to (have) be(en) an SES motto (at one point): Press release Design company portfolio SES video. They own a trademark for it. I don't really think anyone would be searching for that either, but it did come up more than any of the three books when I was looking for sources. Pink Bee (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaboism

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

Hoax? I can't find any source for this, nor any source which verifies that the reference given even exists.

Also nominated:

Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Førre

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Norway. UtherSRG (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: accepting the draft was an error of judgement, the article would have benefitted from being developed there. Notability is a bit thin, but at least she did release her debut album since the last deletion discussion (which I started). Located within the article are three reviews or pieces about that album. Geschichte (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So... would you say "Draftify as an WP:ATD"? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows several other articles about her, which unfortunately are paywalled. They include "Kultur, Musikk | Signe Førre (27) får draumen sin oppfylt på noregsturné" (2022) in Avisa Hordaland; "Signe (27) vil ta vare på det vakre. – Det er litt vanskelig å sette meg i bås" (2021) in Bergens Tidende; "Elegant og tøft frå Signe Førre Trio" (2018) also in Avisa Hordaland; "– Eg hugsar då eg ringde familien og sa at eg fekk spela i Sogndal, det var fylt med mykje glede" (2023) in Sogn Avis; and others. With those already in the article, there is enough coverage to show notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would all depend on if those paywalled articles pass a WP:SIRS check. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic boundary of Moselle

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

A basic Google search gives no sources other than Wikipedia mirrors. Some books can be found, but they only seem to give passing mentions, and seem to mostly cover the larger French-German linguistic boundary. Would not be opposed to an expansion of the scope of this article to encompass such. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and France. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The correspondingh article in French at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fronti%C3%A8re_linguistique_mosellane has lots of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The FR wiki has many links to books that aren't online, I'm assuming they exist in a library somewhere. It's too many to be BS, I'd give this a !keep simply based on the numerous sources in the FR article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, assuming someone wants to take responsibility for the article. This article as written doesn't have enough content to be understandable. As the corresponding article in French does have such content, I assume that this article can be improved, but at this point there's not enough here to keep. (Also, it's not like this is a new article in progress; it was started in 2012 and had not been edited for over a year before this AfD.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- To elaborate further: This article is dominated by a single map, File:Les_dialectes_mosellans.jpg. However, the map does not indicate where the linguistic boundary is, nor where the France-Germany border is. There are some boundary lines marked "op/af", "dat/das", and "Appel/Apfel", but those are German dialectical boundaries, if I understand correctly, and do not appear to relate to the French-German (Romance-Germanic) boundary that this article is supposed to be about. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

109th Signals Squadron

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

The article does not contain any references from media organisations and only one reference is independent from the subject of the article. The unit the article is about does not appear to be notable. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Australia. PercyPigUK (talk) 12:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snug and Cozi

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

Appears to have been a non-notable short-run TV show with absolutely zero coverage outside listing sites and the creator's own web-page Salimfadhley (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find brief usage of the words, nothing related to a TV show. What's now used for sourcing isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned on a dust jacket here, but that's about all there is. [21] Oaktree b (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Michael and All Angels Episcopal Church, Sanibel, Florida

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

General lack of notability. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NCHURCH or have significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Most things are local, run-of-the-mill coverage. The sole thing that may make it notable (integration) is self-sourced and that first is just in the diocese. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and Florida. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 14:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nargiz Absalamova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The objective fact remains:

Nargiz Absalamova is a widely recognized journalist in Azerbaijan.

She has received extensive international coverage from reputable sources.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nazrul Sena School

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

No evidence of notability (contested PROD) — Voice of Clam (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Mehedi Abedin 16:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSCHOOL and also seems to be WP:PROMO. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Exports

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melstar Information Technologies

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maithan Alloys

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Meghalaya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inox Wind

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A2Z Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Seychelles relations

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Israel. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The intro focuses on REFERENCES, while calling these sources. References are in an article. For these one does not have to search. AfDs should be focused on SOURCES, which are out there, per the golden NEXIST rule. A quick scan of the internet proves that there are third party sources, for example in Walla and Mako and Channel 13 of Israel. gidonb (talk) 04:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the Channel 13 source seems an advertorial for Air Seychelles. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By now you have reacted to everyone who disagreed with you yet never convinced why this article should be deleted. There should have been a strong case in the intro. We did not see that. Instead, you shopped in the references, now shop in the sources. The problem is that sufficient unchallenged sources remain. And the listed articles are just a small sample. Maariv regularly covers the subject. For example: Maariv1 Maariv2 Maariv3 Maariv4. gidonb (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

can you tone it down a notch? LibStar (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and arguing over split hairs over references and sources. Suggest you step back from your combative tone. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not combative at all. Would be happy to explain why the distinction between sources and references is important but you can also read about all that elsewhere. Have reacted only below my own writings, where you engaged me, as you did with others. Did not make up my mind hastily. And I see nuances regarding the article. Have detailed these below. Unfortunately, you do drain the sources that totally support keeping the article time and again under vague waves. I hope people can see through the noise. gidonb (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it combative. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Reliable coverage is easily discoverable from a cursory web search. This topic is significant enough on its own to warrant an article; it just hasn't been expanded beyond a stub yet. Yue💌 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources did you find from your search? LibStar (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No doubt the article is poorly written and the sourcing is lacking, but that can be resolved without deletion. The topic meets WP:N and WP:RSs do exist for this topic. Eelipe (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks citations to reliable, secondary sources, and I am not finding any either. Yilloslime (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the GNG. The article is supported by multiple sources, identified by me in in the comment above and within the article itself. More sources exist. No compelling case for deletion has been made. The deletion rationale mentions sources, yet only critiques references. It selectively focuses on three references that support the article's content, while ignoring the Israel Channel 12 news item that supports notability. On the downside: the article is rather short, yet meets the threshold for viability. gidonb (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Channel 12 or 13? LibStar (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 12. gidonb (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: proper WP:BEFORE should have been done FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep has significant coverage such as here, here and here, so WP:GNG. 201.225.5.63 (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)— 201.225.5.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- - LOL no... Yilloslime (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The IP is a suspected sockpuppet of Alon9393 Geschichte (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of the Keeps here lack P&G substance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Wallace

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

previously deleted article not yet ready for namespace: non-WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY dependent BLP, no WP:SIGCOV by unrelated reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are also not WP:INDEPENDENT- they're all either by the subject, promotion of the subject/subject's work, or not reliable (IMDB). Also fails notability guidelines per WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthnope (talk • contribs) 05:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, New Jersey, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would like to mention that I am not very experienced in editing on the English Wikipedia and that I have been more active since June. I mainly contribute to the Serbian Wikipedia, where I am an administrator. On the Serbian Wikipedia, when an article has a "construction" template, no one edits it. So I assumed it was the same here. I haven't finished the article yet and plan to add more references. Here, I mostly write about musicians from jazz and classical music, and for them, there is often a problem with fewer available references. When I started editing here, an experienced user told me that the website allaboutjazz.com is considered a reliable source for musicians of this genre.I found Dorian Wallace while researching the article on John Sanborn (media artist), where his name was in red, and that led me to explore more about him. Could you please tell me which parts of the text are considered promotional? I did use his official website as a source, but I did not copy sentences directly. Dorian Wallace has been mentioned several times in The New York Times, but I haven’t included those references in the article because access requires a paid subscription. I do have a paid subscription—can I include those references in the article? The New York Times is a highly significant media outlet. If you allow me, I will add all the references I can find today and possibly tomorrow. If they are not adequate, you can delete the article. However, I kindly ask for your help in identifying which parts of the article should be removed to avoid promotional content. Thank you in advance for your guidance!--Марко Станојевић (talk) 14:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added several new references and will add a few more. There are also independent sources, such as The New York Times, but I haven’t included them because access requires a paid subscription. However, I will add them now. Here is the proof: [23], [24], [25].--Марко Станојевић (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The overall article could be seen as promotional, as it helps search listings in Google. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is also mentioned in The Independent [26]--Марко Станојевић (talk) 13:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" isn't enough, we need articles about this person specifically. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wallace has composed and collaborated with artists including Robert Ashley, John King, Dave Liebman, Frank London, Matt Marks, John Sanborn, Son Lux, Aleksandra Vrebalov, and Pamela Z.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was nominated for deletion, I have doubled the number of references, added neutral sources, and expanded the content. I would appreciate it if someone could review it again, as it is no longer the same article as when it was initially nominated for deletion.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with the added sources, I still don't see any WP:GNG-qualifying. They're a mix of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, and affiliated sources. I don't see a pass on WP:NMUSIC either. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the improvements made by the author?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage, outside of concert/performance listings. The Independent article is about a bunch of musicians, not just this person. Being board certified isn't notable, and an educator isn't either. Having a "license" to do your job is the bare minimum needed in most countries with professional standards organisations, it does not imply notabilty. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Supermobile

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

Very minor element of the Superman universe; short article, pure plot summary and list of appearances. Fails WP:GNG. No idea where this could redirect, but always open to consider redirection a viable alternative to hard deletion (closer, please note: if anyone suggests a target, consider me to support it). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete unless a merge target can be found. There's not really a good merge target for this. Perhaps to Superman#Merchandising given the one source mentioned here mentions it was used exclusively for that purpose? But even so it'd be a brief sentence. This is an extremely minor universe element, so there's not much to be retained here. If a good merge target is found I'll change my vote to merge, so ping me if something changes. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Superman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. We need an equipment or technology section to that page if the Supermobile going to be redirected there as we already know that Batman has a similar section on his page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel another section is necessary unless Superman has a ton of technology that has discussion. Batman is discussed for a lot of his tech, and much of his tech has coverage. Superman has comparatively less. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only other technology I recall him having is the Phantom Zone Projector, but it didn't have an article and was covered in the Phantom Zone page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative, a section could be added to Fortress of Solitude for things located/stored there. There are more items than one might think.

That said, I think the best solution might be to Listify Category:DC Comics vehicles (and Category:Marvel Comics vehicles). If you look at AfD right now, several vehicles are up for discussion, and creation of List of DC Comics vehicles and List of Marvel Comics vehicles would resolve most of them, I think. - jc37 22:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that most of these have valid redirect targets, and the topics themselves are just non-notable. Supermobile is more of an exception in terms of places we can cover it than the norm. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - The Supermobile itself does not pass the WP:GNG, and it is such a minor piece of trivia in the Superman mythos that I feel that actually merging this to an article like the main Superman page would be giving undue coverage to it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viraj Bahl

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above comments made in support to keep the article are unconvincing. Subject fails GNG. Agletarang (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. AgerJoy talk 08:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep new articles[27][28] are appearing related to his TV work. Orange sticker (talk) 12:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these sources only have generic bylines and do not identify an individual reporter and therefore unusable for establishing notability per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. There is WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable sources that focus on his personal notability. It also meets the basic criteria of WP:NBLP since the subject is notable for more than one event (again, as evidenced by the reliable sources cited).--DesiMoore (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as Per Orange Sticker and DesiMoore, the article contains several significant coverage sources about the subject from reliable sources and plenty more online about him and his TV work. (Ref 1) The Forbes article also contains significant coverage; his name appears 28 times in the article Monhiroe (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above, the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Taabii (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite all the WP:VAGUEWAVES votes above (which should be discarded by the closer), no evidence has been provided for meeting the notability guideline, the sources cited in the article all have issues such as lacking bylines , promotional tone etc. as noted at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. They are unusable for establishing notability. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, citations are not independent of the person and not enough significant coverage independent of the subject. Common knowledge that Sharktank judging slots nowadays are up for sale. JustinTrooDooo (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that all judges who appear on the show pay for their spots? That's your personal opinion and it's a separate discussion that would require solid evidence to back it up. Shark Tank is a popular global business show and any such claim would need to be backed by solid evidence. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources cited in the article like Forbes, GQ and several others are bylined, independent, and provide sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this satisfies WP:GNG and hence it should be there on Wikipedia.Adamantine123 (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep– I respectfully disagree with Ratnahastin. The points made by the editors above especially DesiMooreo and Monhiroe regarding WP:GNG and WP:NBIO are valid and can not be overlooked. Having generic bylines does not necessarily mean an article is unreliable or paid for. The sources highlighted by Orange Sticker are neutral with no promotional tone and are totally usable here. I also don't agree with the claim that all the sources in the article are unbylined or promotional. In fact, the majority of the article's sources (about 17) are clearly bylined and come from reputable news outlets. For instance, sources like Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes are reliable independent and well-established with editorial oversight and significant coverage. These sources aren't promotional and are quite usable in establishing this person's notability. Indian Express, Times Now, and Economic Times are also good sources. Additionally, being a judge on Shark Tank, one of the most popular global business television shows, is significant. This individual has received significant media attention for his appearance on the show and continues to get more coverage from independent media as shown by online searches.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly have ignored all concerns about WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the articles you have cited [29][30][31] (two of them with generic bylines)are nothing more than puff pieces and should be discounted per the guidance. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of WP:NEWSORGINDIA and everything I wrote above. Almost all media outlets, big or small, publish paid or sponsored content not just in India but worldwide. At the end of the day, media companies aren't nonprofits. Their main job is reporting, writing, editing, and presenting news to the public, but they mostly survive on advertising. You see a lot of display ads on their websites and advertisements in newspapers that's how they make money. That said major media outlets categorize paid stories separately. For example, The Times of India publishes them under "Spotlight," Hindustan Times under "Brand Media" or "Impact Feature," and Inc42 under "BrandLabs." These articles are usually puffery and easy to spot (not lecturing). You're right that they don't establish notability but that doesn't mean we should classify everything that isn't published under those specific categories in WP:NEWSORGINDIA just because they have generic bylines and only consider editorial content. Plenty of Wikipedia articles use sources without bylines. Major publications have strict editorial processes. Proper bylined articles go through rigorous review and fact-checking. I don't think all articles fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Sources includingForbes India, GQ India, and Outlook Business, provide reliable, independent coverage with editorial oversight and are valid sources. As for the other articles, I wouldn't call them puffery. Puffery is exaggerated or misleading praise. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"publish paid or sponsored content" Yes with adequate disclosure, but that doesn't happen in India, you entirely missed the point of the guidance. Indian media is notorious for publishing paid news/coverage without any disclosure, they publish press releases, churnalist puff and promotional pieces as news, read User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties too. "I wouldn't call them puffery" - Did you even read them? They all have promotional tone. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into this sandbox as Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is the right place to discuss this- I understood what you're trying to prove with your comments, so let's focus on that.

"But that doesn’t happen in India," as you claim, then why did these publications introduce paid content categories and choose not to publish such content under "Staff Reporter" or an editor's name? How did we find out that publications label content as "Brand Media," "Brand Post," "Featured Content," "Partnered Content," "Spotlight," or "Brand Lab" to indicate paid material? And how were they reported and included in WP:NEWSORGINDIA? Isn't that a disclosure?

Just because some publications or journalists engage in this practice (posting paid content without proper disclosure) does not mean we should assume the same for every outlet. I'm not claiming media companies are NGOs (please refer to my previous comment carefully). However, making broad generalizations about all publications is neither accurate nor fair.

Notability should be evaluated solely based on the sources used- if independent sources provide sufficient coverage, the subject meets our notability criteria. If not, the content should be removed. The sources I presented above offer sufficient, independent, reliable, and significant coverage and meet WP:GNG. I will end it here. EmilyR34 (talk) 07:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is the proper place to judge sources which what we are doing here. "paid content categories and choose not to publish such content" - You are failing to understand that guidance is clearly about undisclosed paid editing in Indian media, these media houses publish press releases and puff pieces intermingled with regular news. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AfD is the right place to evaluate sources and that's what I pointed out in my comment above. However, it seems like instead of doing that we're lumping everything under WP:RSNOI. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per all above. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Godovereverthing (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NEWSORGINDIA. NXcrypto Message 03:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes India, GQ India, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes also fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? EmilyR34 (talk) 07:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of them are indian sources , therefore if they have issues that are documented at the guidance, they fall under it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I asked. I'm questioning whether Forbes India, GQ, Outlook Business, and Indiatimes, which I provided above, also have the same issues mentioned at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. EmilyR34 (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source assessment done by someone familiar with our notability guidelines would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 09:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney nurses anti-Israel remarks incident

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

WP:NOTNEWS. While this incident got plenty of coverage in primary sources, it is way too soon to suppose that will have WP:SUSTAINED coverage and will lead to secondary sources. There are also are aspects of WP:BLPCRIME, the two nurses don't need to have their names and actions highlighted for ever in an encyclopedia, they weren't notable and the event is in the end an anecdote, not a major event. Finally, I would like to compare this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States proposed takeover of the Gaza Strip, a much more notable event which was deleted for NOTNEWS and similar considerations (but which has since continued to have real-world repercussions on a major scale). It seems hard to argue that that page warranted deletion, but as the arguments used there apply a hundred times more here, I don't see how the article on this minor incident can stay. Fram (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Health and fitness, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. Fram (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Random ozzy here, not all that up yo speed with wikipedia policy, or procedure, but I did do some basic reading before weighing in, I want to question if blpcrime is applicable here, given that the notibility of the topic isn't that a crime was commited, but that such a position was made by staff in a state run health facility.

I also think it is a notible event, as claims of antisemitism have been thus far not notible by present within the government health system. Where this has shot it into the spot light. It has launched a number of investigations by independent oversight bodies, not just of the incident, but of what is being claimed as a bigger problem. I feel as the event that is sparking such a major investivation, it gets notibility.

Finally, i am very much unsure why its being compared to somthing big don proposed, i don't see the similarities between his pie on the sky ramblings, and an actual event that took place.

Btw i lurk in the talk pages enough to know i need to be civil, and a few other bits, but please take my input with a grain of salt. I just really found the article helpful today in explaining to the wife what was going on, so thought I should throw in my 2 cents. 144.6.103.10 (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)striking WP:ECR violation Left guide (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison is because the wild idea by Trump may never amount to anything, but it has had many important repercussions, e.g. the Egyptian President cancelling a US state visit, the Arab leaders planning a summit, and so on. Fram (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since I created the article maybe I'll be biased. But this incident created a national outrage, down to the Prime Minister commenting on it. It was covered in many of our major outlets, and even on international media such as NBC News, Fox News, BBC News and Al Jazeera. Moreover, international political YouTubers as well covered the videos and made commentaries on it. This was a huge deal and a shocking incident, particularly for Australian standards. So much that the NSW government is planning to create hate speech laws after it (or at least they've been entertaining that idea). Either way, this has been on the news quite a lot even for our standards. It's a blatantly prejudice incident that will not be forgotten. I'm sure such a similar racist incident at a hospital in the US wouldn't be seen as 'NOTNEWS'. But for Australian standards, and Wikipedia should not be US-centric (as it generally is), this was a prominent racist incident in our history. I mean, two nurses in a hospital saying they won't treat patients because of their ethnicity. This is barely a minor incident in a peaceful country like Australia. Hell, I would say that this article is a "strong keep", but I don't want to be too biased. Furthermore, the case is still ongoing as per the Investigation section of the article. This case will be something that will regularly appear on the news for months to come, and therefore more content will included and article expanded. Yucalyptus (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suggest removing the Fox News source (per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS) and The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) as it is consider unreliable Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Fox reference; I'll leave the Sydney Telegraph and other News Corp Australia properties for others more knowledgeable. Havradim leaf a message 18:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: to allow this event to mature. It's almost TOOSOON at this point to see if it has any lingering notability. The topic will of course get attention now given the state of the world, but it may die down and never be talked about again in 6mths. Oaktree b (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: or !delete if it goes that way, I'm not fussed. We don't have notability, yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bankstown Lidcombe Hospital#Anti-Israeli remarks incident per WP:ATD-R. The incident is notable, just not as a stand-alone article yet per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 University of Utah Hospital incident is informative here, as it is another article nominated by the OP about a viral video that spotlighted the legal problems of a nurse, with the same NOTNEWS and BLPCRIME issues. In that case, the article was written months after the incident, and shows the impact the incident had on the hospital, the police department, protesters, and on Utah politics in general. This solution also retains the article's history, so in the event anything of substance turns up during the next few months, the article can then be recreated and improved. Havradim leaf a message 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree there is an issue with naming the suspects, they haven't even been charged yet let alone convicted. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please see WP:RAPID. Meets WP:GNG with widespread coverage in mainstream media. The article can describe the two nurses without using their names. As the article's author stated above, concerns about healthcare workers refusing to treat patients based on their ethnicity and/or creed are impactful to the global community. Allthemilescombined1 (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once this case is fully settled and covered by reliable sources, it may be worth including as a brief example in the 'Antisemitism in Australia' article. HerBauhaus (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:GNG. The incident deserves a small mention in Antisemitism in Australia but no redirect required. LibStar (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamo Gaming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input. However, I have already improved the article by adding better sources and removing weaker ones like Sportskeeda. Additionally, I have fixed the promotional tone and added more reliable sources, including Hindustan Times,Times of India, IGN India, Financial Express, FirstPost, an official government X post have been included. If you believe the article still lacks notability, I would appreciate any guidance on additional sources that could help establish it. Sarthak14331 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you claim that you removed the Sportskeeda sources or why you seem to still think you added sources that establish notability. In fact this all seems like RefBombing. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu:I apologize for the confusion regarding the removal of the Sportskeeda reference. Upon reviewing the edit history, I see that you were the one who removed it, not me. I misspoke earlier, and I appreciate you pointing that out. Thank you for catching that.

Regarding Dynamo Gaming, I believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to its significant presence in the esports community and the Indian gaming industry. It has been covered by reliable, independent sources that highlight its achievements and impact.

Thank you for bringing up the concern about refbombing. I want to clarify that my intention was not to overwhelm the article with references but to provide sufficient evidence of Dynamo Gaming's notability. Each reference I included is from a reliable, independent source and directly supports the content in the article. If any of the references seem excessive or unnecessary, I’d be happy to review and adjust them. I’m open to your feedback and would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve the sourcing further. Sarthak14331 (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you respond to what I said above? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another assessment of sourcing would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai City Gangsters

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

Non-notable unreleased film. See [32] and User talk:Gowthamaprabu#Chennai City Gangsters. Kindly draftify per agreement with article creator. DareshMohan (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Tamil Nadu. -Mushy Yank. 10:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming or shelved? If the latter, redirect, if the first redirect or draftify. But coverage might be judged sufficient for a Keep.... -Mushy Yank. 10:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kalous

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

Fails WP:NATH and WP:NOLY. Non-notable athlete with a short career and without achievements.The recent expansion did nothing to prove notability. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I had stated in my prod endorsement: Fails WP:NATH and WP:NOLY. Also fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The third reference looks decent, but multiple sources containing significant coverage are required. It also looks like a blogspot anyway. I thought of redirect to Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon#Results, but given that nothing happened to this person since his participation and we can't find anything to verify his death, further coverage of him are extremely impossible to find. Offline sources like archived newspapers may exist, we can't assume that to be the case. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clariniie, although multiple sources containing significant coverage are required to exist, only one is actually required to be cited in the article, per WP:SPORTCRIT prong 5 which is fulfilled in this case. I don't think that It also looks like a blogspot is a fair reason for dismissing a source because it's not a Blogspot site. --Habst (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another Lugnuts page. Per Clara. RossEvans19 (talk 13:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the expansion. Subject was a runner-up finisher at the Prague Marathon (before its 1995 reboot) in the 1920s, posted top times in the 5000 m and 10,000 m and was also an accomplished association football player. One of the sources we have says (translated), "sometimes you'll find his name in an old almanac or brochure mentioning the old days of Hradec Králové athletics". So that means invoking WP:NEXISTS is valid here -- where are those old almanacs or brochures? As long as we know they exist (and we do because they're referenced in the article), Wikipedia guidelines say those should be considered in deletion discussions. --Habst (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No SIGCOV in IRS. The Hradec Kralove site is a group blog by local amateur sports historians. If actual sources are found the page can be recreated. JoelleJay (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Habst. Notable through competing in the Olympics as well. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

AfDs for this article:

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

Please see the message on my talk page requesting deletion. Previous rationale for no consensus was that the subject(s) of this article wished the page to be split and not deleted; I think that the current comment on my talk page makes it clear that deletion is an option per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the requirements for us to keep this article seem to be either proving greater-than-marginal notability or forming a clear consensus against deletion. While I can see the case for marginality regarding Rostampour, Amirizadeh's later activities suggest more significant and sustained notability. Not !voting right now, as the policy here is a tad contradictory with other policies (that's not a bad thing, as this allows us to address competing interests). ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and a complex !vote. Like Pbritti I am a bit conflicted on the best outcome. In the last AfD I supported a merge to Evin Prison since I don't believe either is individually notable. (I guess I should have followed Owen's instructions to do a bold merge but I confess I didn't have it on my watchlist so didn't notice the close.) I think the best case would be to delete this page per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, since the case for the notability of these individuals as a pair is marginal, and redirect Marziyeh Amirizadeh, which currently redirects here, to Evin Prison to preserve the possibility of expansion of an article on the apparently more notable of the two. Since there is currently no redirect at Maryam Rostampour, this addresses the BLPREQUESTDELETE issue. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have added the AfD header template to the article page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative option, to preserve the page history, would be for any page mover to move this page to Marziyeh Amirizadeh without leaving a redirect, then redirect that title to Evin Prison. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Leslie (disambiguation)

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

A one-entry dab page? What exactly is being disambiguated here? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G14. The "See also" section is all WP:PARTIAL stuff. BilletsMauves^€500 14:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G14 and WP:PARTIAL. Hatnote can fix it if there is a confusion. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. Reorganized the list to made it clear what's being disambiguated, placed the tangential reference (alone) in the See Also.TheLastBrunnenG (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Middle names don't count, and it's clearly not a compound given name like Billy Jo(e). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have reformatted it per MOS:DAB, which just shows how pointless it is: we do not disambiguate on pairs of given names. PamD 16:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Joe McAllister just jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge after hearing your comment. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vierka Berkyová

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Television, and Slovakia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Both SME and Život references look decent, the former of which has more independent analysis beyond the interview. Searching for "Vierka Berkyová site:.sk" on Google may show more secondary results. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Život has no byline, it is a PR announcement of the new album which never appeared and the SME stated is from the editorial office, meaning its paid for PR as well. Those two are non-rs sources. You don't know how to evaluate references. scope_creep^Talk 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making hostile personal comments. Thank you. (I am not sure I agree with your appraisal of the sources (Korzár being what it is, not great but certainly not plainly "non-rs"; and the same goes for Život and Plus jeden deň (same group) in general and in that particular case) but even if it is correct, that's not my point). -Mushy Yank. 19:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SuperStar_Search_Slovakia#Series overview: (or to SuperStar_Search_Slovakia season_3. Listed there, obviously (as the winner), as I suggested when I deProded the page and added sources (same nominator) if the sources are judged insufficient for a standalone article. -Mushy Yank. 18:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC) Changing to Keep in view of the sources presented by @Newklear007:. Thanks. [edited, -Mushy Yank. 16:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)][reply]

Your the editor that removed the prod and put these trash references in. You have no clue how to evaluate a proper reference either. I intend to check every article you have created in the next several weeks. scope_creep^Talk 20:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. But, again, do refrain from making (very) hostile (and rude) personal comments. -Mushy Yank. 20:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic but you can sign your comments with ~~~~ All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have been an editor for 6 years now so I am a bit shocked that you didn't know this (that's an assumption though). Please remember to sign your comments properly. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays:, not sure what you meant: who did you assume didn't sign their comments properly? Every single comment on this page was. Including mine. -Mushy Yank. 16:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: – I would be fine for redirect. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Clariniie: Actually, I am now a Keep myself too given the new sources presented. Thanks!-Mushy Yank. 16:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is sufficient converge in secondary sources. Personal attacks are not an argument for page deletion. Newklear007 (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newklear007: What secondary sources, exactly? If there is no secondary sources that satisfies the WP:BLP and WP:BIO, then in a month or two it will going to Afd. So post up the secondary sources. I see you have only done 15 Afd's. It is common best practice, consensus based practice to post the evidence on here, so they can be reviewed, i.e. WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfy WP:BIO. Then I can close it. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Here you go [33][34][35][36][37] Newklear007 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newklear007: Thanks for posting that. It looks like there is some more stuff there that wasn't there before. I'll take a look, shortly. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These references arent particularly decent either. What is here is a singer who took part in the Slovensko hľadá SuperStar, at the end was dropped by her label and never made an album. Most of the coverage is instrumental to that event and there is nothing else. She fails WP:NSINGER and WP:SIGCOV. It all z-list stuff and completely non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that uncivilized behaviour, personal attacks and singling out a specific editor to follow around are all serious policy violations.

If you disagree with someone's source assessment, criticize the assessment, not the editor who presented it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Augusto De Luca

AfDs for this article:

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

Dubious notability, tagged as such since 2023 without improvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as mentioned in the previous deletion nomination, the article was initially created as a “promotional entry” and that may have been the case, however, I created this article independently, without knowing a previous version existed, and without any contact with those who worked on that said original. As stated in the previous deletion discussion, the subject had notability, but the article was removed due to its promotional nature, something that isn’t the case now. V.B.Speranza (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe that Wikipedia is mainly interested in the encyclopedic nature of the character. So... just look on Google at the dozens of articles that this photographer has had, the people he has met and photographed in his career, the exhibitions and books he has created to understand that De Luca has all the qualifications and requirements to stay. RonnyW55 (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RonnyW55 I agree, even if the previous page had the wrong intentions, I created this without knowing about it and I’ve done my best to keep it neutral and correct. V.B.Speranza (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@V.B.SperanzaI am certain that the current page does not contain any celebratory or promotional element. RonnyW55 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the article's subject per WP:NBIO, not the intentions of the article's author or the neutrality of its content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 07:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, In addition to the many links that I have inserted in the discussion page of this photographer, some very important events with related correspondence are mentioned, such as: the exhibition at the Chamber of Deputies with the presentation of the President of the Italian Republic Giorgio Napolitano and the interventions of the Honorable Nilde Iotti and of Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, also President of the Italian Republic before Giorgio Napolitano * "La mostra alla Camera dei Deputati di Augusto De Luca" (in Italian).Scatole Piene. Then De Luca received, together with the maestro Ennio Morricone (Oscar for career as a composer), the "Città di Roma Award" for his photographic book "Roma Nostra". Morricone received the prize for a poem he wrote in the same book * "Ennio Morricone e Augusto De Luca Premiati" (in Italian).EDUcational Encyclopedia of Digital Arts. Is this notable or not ? RonnyW55 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Ridge, Jasper County, Indiana

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

So here we hit yet another conundrum in Jasper County, which seems to have more than its share, mostly due to Mr. Gifford of railroad fame. And this is plainly a point on a railroad (though not on his), as I find a tax assessment for the depot. The problem is that leaving out a soil series name use, everything is either using this to locate various properties/people, or records a series of industrial/agricultural facilities at the spot, of which there are three at present: a trailer manufacturer which occupies the westernmost and oldest spot, an ag co-op which may be the descendant of the oldest documented business, and a bio-energy plant which is a relative newcomer. The irregular lake to the north is the remains of the fourth business, a quarry which was apparently opened up around 1960. Both the co-op and the quarry have secondary documentation; interestingly, I also found this ad for a property sale, a tile factory which clearly wasn't here, but the agent of the seller apparently was. Or at least, he picked up his mail there. But once again, there's no sign anyone ever lived here. There was what looks from the air like a farmstead directly at the RR crossing in 1957, but it disappears after that; another disappears into the quarry property. Otherwise it's all farm fields surrounding the industry. Can anyone find something that actually describes the place? Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with Surrey, Indiana (AfD discussion) we're still on page 74 of the cited county history, and the same sources for Surrey station that I have cited in that AFD discussion have Pleasant Ridge station on Monon Railroad#Section #1, between Rensselaer and McCoysburg. Comtemporary Lippincott's from the 1880s and Bullinger's 1961 Postal and Shippers Guide for the United States and Canada and Newfoundland have this as a post office as well. The 1880 Lippincott's also adds "on the Indianapolis, Delphi & Chicago Railroad, 4 miles E. of Rensselaer". Uncle G (talk) 13:01, 5 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!} 05:22, 12 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) 07:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HuMo-gen

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

Fails WP:NSOFT. The best coverage I could find is four sentences in this paper. Even this source has dubious reliability: it cites two research articles in this sub-paragraph ([38], [39]), but neither of them mention HuMo-gen. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Software, and Netherlands. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears promotional, and I don't think being mentioning in a literature review counts as significant independent coverage - to quote WP:NSOFT inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage.. --Spacepine (talk) 08:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typesetter CMS

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

No evidence of notability, many of the sources don't even support the given statement. Greenman (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only source that's not primary and actually has something is https://cmsguide.info/directory/light/typesetter, which is far from WP:SIGCOV, and I'm not convinced about their reliability either. After a quick research, I could find a personal website that doesn't look reliable and a usage stats database, nothing that would count for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Features of Spider-Man media

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

Following from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, this is the last of those three fictional universe descriptions in a list form. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NLIST; Wikipedia articles are not places for pure plot summaries, and as a list, this is too broad (list of all fictional in-universe concepts related to Spider-Man). PS. Also, on the off chance this is kept, this would need renaming to the list of something format. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Comics and animation, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC) PS. Looking closely, this article is not even an attempt at a comprehensive list; it is just a short but in-depth description of just three entities that would unlikely have survived on their own and were cobbled tougher in attempt to hide from GNG: "Empire State University", "Midtown High School" and "Ravencroft" (prison). The latter currently has a poor stand-alone article, which is not even linked from this fancrufty mess here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and consolidate into Spider-Man: While this can definitely be improved upon, I am not leaning as strongly on retaining this one as the others because it could be consolidated into the Spider-Man article with considerable details removed (namely the exhaustive list of school students and faculty). Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101 I am curious what difference do you see here? I struggle to find any myself. (And on a side note, splitting Marvel and Marvel Cinematic stuff is still puzzling to me, as so much of it is redundant - how about at least merging the two other articles into one?) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Marvel Comics and MCU are two separate franchises, so a merge is not a viable option there. I'm not sure how the content from this list could be implemented into the Spidey article or to what extent, though I would imagine a trimmed section for related attributes of the character's features from the schools to his web-shooters, costumes, etc. could suffice. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article was created in the first place so we would not need to have separate articles on each school and business associated with Spider-Man (all of which could survive as freestanding articles, given their representation across multiple media over decades). This should have the same outcome as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Features of the Marvel Universe (3rd nomination), both of which are on track to be kept resoundingly. BD2412 T 01:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Similar articles regularly get deleted; they have no stand-alone notability (if they had, they'd have their own articles). Adding them to a list is just listcruft. 0+0+0 still equals 0. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are items listed in this article that already have stand-alone notability, beginning with the Daily Bugle. BD2412 T 02:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it may appear that way to you, there are several editors of these comic-related articles who would disagree with that assertion (based on the two other AfDs). Each of these entries could stand as individual articles but were agreed to be merged into this singular list via prior discussions and consensus in those that a singular list would better highlight all of these features related to the character as opposed to being separate articles. There is nothing which precludes such compiled lists from existing, and there are decent sources, with potential for more to be added rather than a complete deletion which would break countless links and leave out much information from this encyclopedia that our readers would be searching for. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and consolidate into Spider-Man per Trailblazer. I was worried this would be some massive pile of information to sift through, but the info in the article is relatively concise. Barring the three locations with pre-existing articles, there are two schools and one prison. These locations contain a lot of unneeded information (Do we really need lists of minor characters without articles?) and can be trimmed quite easily to slot somewhere into the Spider-Man article. All locations, including those with articles, can be mentioned in brief there, with a summary explaining what each location is and why it is important to the Spider-Man mythos. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:CSC point 2. Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CSC only applies if none meet notability, which is blatantly false when three of the article's entries have their own articles. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An all-or-nothing rule seems ill-considered here, given that Wikipedia has tons of lists of instances for which some are notable and have articles while others are not (e.g., List of mayors of Florence). BD2412 T 17:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of a list is often based on the notability of the subject group. Largely unfamiliar with your hyperlinked article, but an important governmental position is likely to be more covered in sources than a list of fictional locations with no sourcing showcasing real world relevance. Many of the subjects in the list are entirely non-notable, and the subject itself isn't notable, either. Notability should not be inherited from the few locations that are notable, either.

Also note that CSC 2 says that "Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article." CSC 2 isn't exactly a blanket keep statement, even if all the subjects fail notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning here is that Spider-Man is an article on a specific fictional character, not the entire universe this character occupies, which is separately notable. Although this universe is a subset of the Marvel Comics universe it has locations and characters (many of these separately notable) that arise from it and that are specific to Spider-Man media. This is reflected in fact that there are three separate film franchises, including the 1970s one, around this character and their environs completely unconnected to the MCU or anything else Marvel. Of course, there is also the MCU-adjacent film series, which also reflects the locations and character specific to the Spider-Man universe. Perhaps the title of this article needs to be adjusted to reflect that or the criteria for inclusion of content needs to be clarified, but it will not be at all difficult to demonstrate GNG worthy coverage at this fictional world I've tried with the character itself. BD2412 T 18:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication the Universe of Spider-Man is a notable topic either, though. That's my main concern. Regardless of title, this is just a non-notable topic unless sourcing can be shown. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why there should be allowed time to find sources to prove whether it is or not, rather than forcing an AfD with inconclusive information. This is something to hash out at the list talk, not here. AfD should be a last resort, not a garbage dumb to prove a point. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally of the mind that if it's at AfD, we may as well stick with the discussion while it's here, but I see your point. Decided to do a quick source run to double check details. There's a fair few hits in News for Sony's shared movie universe, but that's already covered at Sony's Spider-Man Universe, and when Sony is removed, there's not much outside of trivial Wikipedia:VALNET hits, which don't count toward notability. There's a brief hit here [40], but that's very short and more discussing characters than locations. Outside of that, Books has little bar trivial mentions using it as a buzzword for Spider-Man media. I can't view every scholar hit, but there seems to be a lot of hits on the multiverse in Spider-Man, but again that's an entirely different subject. There may be some hits I missed but I did take a look through everything I could and found little. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much as it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I mean seriously, this better be the last of these AFD abuses I find or you're going to ANI, dude. Barnt Toust 02:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BarntToust Drop that tone and WP:REFACTOR yourself, or ANI it will be - for your violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, you calling the work of the contributors "crap" is something that tells me you need to REFACTOR yourself, as no editor should be as brazen as you have been at these afds. Before you dig yourself into a bigger hole by getting ~~pissy~~ agitated with me, I strongly suggest you do as @Jclemens advised you on the MU afd; to quote them describing your conduct: deceptive, inappropriate, and your attitude is unbecomingly disrespectful to the people who build Wikipedia. Do better, and stop kicking sandcastles over just because you're an academic. Barnt Toust 03:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~@BD2412, as you were saying on the MU AfD, what are your thoughts on this? Barnt Toust 03:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Jesus, Piotrus, you should know better than being confrontational to other editors. Please, WP:Assume good faith and don't pick fights. That is not what this discussion is for. I would happily report either one for derailing this discussion and being uncivil towards each other, so I hope it doesn't have to come to that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm finna tap out and just fine-tune a page I've been working on. Sayonara. Barnt Toust 03:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking out some confrontational garbage I wrote. I got better things to write for better reasons. Barnt Toust 04:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those who care, I have mended fences with BarnToust on my talk page - we are good. And I will also apologize for using the term 'crap'. While I consider the content in question to be low quality and IMHO mostly non-encyclopedic, I was too colloquial in my assessment :> _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is inherently unsalvageable and redundant fancruft. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Little support for outright deletion, but there is no apparent consensus on whether this should be standalone page. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to moving this to List of features of Spider-Man media, if that is all that it would take to resolve the question. BD2412 T 01:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 But is it a list of media of a list of in-universe concepts? I mean, what are "features of media"? This name is just weird, compared to (closed as keep) Features of the Marvel Universe, which at least is clearly about the latter (in-universe stuff). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I'll ping @Trailblazer101, @Jclemens, @Hyperbolick, @BarntToust. If you want this kept, fine, but can you at least tell us what you think about the current name and scope of the article, and suggest a better name? Spider-Man universe? Features of Spider-Man universe? List of Spider-Man concepts? What is this supposed to be? Because at the very least, this is not about media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the title is an issue, I would be comfortable with either List of Spider-Man features, Features from the Spider-Man universe, or List of features in Spider-Man media. "Spider-Man universe" would be too ambiguous as it could also refer to the Spider-Verse or Sony's Spider-Man Universe, and I feel if we titled it with "concepts", then the scope would have to change to encompass the Spider-Verse, Symbiotes, cloning, etc. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: You are misunderstanding "media" here, which I grant may be due to my use of the word in a jargony way. It just means the media in which the work is produced. This is a list of features originating in the comic books (as things relating to Spider-Man generally do) and then used in other Spider-Man media, such as TV series, video games, and films. BD2412 T 02:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, Wikipedia terms "lists" as lists, while only excluding the term once the page becomes the host of built-out encyclopedic content. e.x. Characters of The Last of Us (TV series)—versus—List of Phineas and Ferb characters.

In this case, however, I believe that adding verbiage to the title in order to differentiate a "list" from a "built out bastion of encyclopedic information"—that would just be, well, verbiage.

I may wager that this specific page would require sources of literature on the subject, not just the WP:GOOGLETEST. Doesn't mean it's not notable, just means a different medium would need to be researched. Barnt Toust 13:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
List of features in Spider-Man media alternatively would be a fantastic title. Barnt Toust 13:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean either way the subject just isn't notable. Just because it's renamed doesn't change the fact there's no coverage on the topic of features, locations, or the universe of Spider-Man specifically, especially as a group, which is required for a list to meet standalone notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: I think we are approaching this from very different mindsets, because to me this is like saying that the entirety of the world constructed around Spider-Man, apart from the character itself, is not notable, even though the same set of fictional locations and environs are re-used throughout many different adaptations of the original property into many different media. BD2412 T 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 just because they are re-used does not mean they are instantly notable. We need sources to back up notability, none of which are demonstrated here. As I said before, there may be sources on individual concepts (Stuff like Daily Bugle and Oscorp, though I admittedly haven't checked for those) or on related concepts (Like the multiverse in Spider-Man) but if there's no sourcing on a topic, in this case the Spider-Man universe, than it's just non-notable, regardless of any assumed assertions of notability. If you can provide sources to back up your claims I'd be willing to potentially reconsider, but right now you're basically saying Wikipedia:ITSNOTABLE and nothing more. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is literally a New York Times article cited on this page just about Aunt May's house. Most of the locations detailed in this article are included in Sanderson, Peter (2007). The Marvel Comics Guide to New York City. New York City: Pocket Books. pp. 30–33, 221–22. ISBN 978-1-4165-3141-8. Retrieved 18 July 2015.. This is sourced. BD2412 T 19:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of the concept is not INHERITED from the notability of individual locations. Regardless of whether its a standalone article or a list, coverage must be shown of that article's primary topic specifically. If it's a list, coverage must be shown of the subject as a group for it to meet notability. Using today's FA as an example, Tesla and unions is notable because there's coverage of Tesla's relationship with labor unions specifically. If all the coverage was about one specific union and nothing else, we'd have an article on that union, and not an article on an overall topic that doesn't have coverage. For an example from something I've been working on recently, we have articles on individual games in the Pokémon Stadium series, but not an overall series article. This is because there is no coverage on the series as a whole, but there is enough coverage on the individual games that each can sustain an article. If Aunt May's house has the coverage for an article, so be it, but that does not mean the Spider-Man universe, or the features of said universe, are notable because Aunt May's house is.

As for your book, I can't gauge much of the exact content of that book you're citing because it's paywalled, so there may be some SIGCOV on the entire concept of a Spider-Man universe or locations independently of the Marvel Universe in there, but that can't really be gauged unless you have access to the book and can provide exact quotations within it. If it's just the concept of individual locations being discussed (Obviously don't know if this is in the book or not, but if the coverage is just on Oscorp or the Daily Bugle specifically and nothing else, for example) and not the overall concept, that still falls into the pitfalls I've mentioned above regardless of what kind of source it's coming from. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Coast Computer Project

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

Nothing in google news, 1 hit in google books and 3 small mentions in Australian database Trove. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created the article and made the initial few eddits. I have on objection to its deletion. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Beaver dam Czech Republic

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

Blatant WP:NOTNEWS violation. Laun chba ller 04:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Events, Environment, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is with unreliable sources. Nothing is notable and this article also seems promotional. Also a open violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Article has to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sackiii (talk • contribs) 06:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is news, not encyclopedic. Having said that, it might be worth mentioning in Environmental impacts of beavers. --Spacepine (talk) 08:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not at all notable and a clear WP:NOTNEWS violation ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Probably could SNOW close this. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Dawson

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

Sources provided are insufficient for general notability guideline as shown by source analysis (below), in which at most one source is acceptable. WP:BEFORE did not retrieve better sources, in particular for Jet ski at the 2023 SEA Games which one would expect some recent coverage about.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bri
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dawndawsond2/	subject's SPS can not be used for notability	claims about education do not have an exception in WP:ABOUTSELF	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail	✘ No
http://www.reflectionsadvertising.com/works/	not independent; employer	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	has part of subject's name in email address, no other bio details	✘ No
https://aafcos.com/past-winners-silver-medal-award/	not independent; uses awarding org. as citation of award	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	provides a year and a name, no details about what was award-worthy	✘ No
https://www.csbj.com/2001/09/28/how-a-co-springs-ad-agency-owner-became-a-world-champion-jet-skier/		Business Journal generally reliable	Dead link, not archived, can not be retrieved for assessment	? Unknown
https://www.ijsba.com/results/2000/results2000wf_overall_expert.htm	source states that this subj is an affiliate of their org (see quote)	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	passing mention: "The event is being organized, in part, by longtime IJSBA announcer (and racer) Dawn Dawson..."	✘ No
https://www.ijsba.com/flora-bama-grand-prix-this-weekend-april-13-15-pensacola-florida/	coverage of org's own event	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	passing mention of announcer at an event	✘ No
http://mulletwrapper.net/emerald-coast-grand-prix-jet-ski-race-april-13-15-at-bama/		local alt-weekly not considered reliable. At RSN another editor said "somewhat reliable for coverage of its local area" which could mean reliable for the fact that they announced the event.	passing mention of announcer/coordinator for an event	✘ No
http://nzjetski.co.nz/2012-nz-jet-sports-nationals			passing mention: "The Canterbury Club flew the lovely international jet ski announcer Dawn Dawson all the way from her home in the USA, Dawn kept the large crowd informed and entertained all weekend with her cheeky banter."	✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNYnCj7Bk8A	Independence of un-authenticated YT uploader is impossible to determine (possibly pseudonymous).	YouTube clips can not be used for notability (WP:YOUTUBE) with rare exceptions. This is an upload by some individual of their personal video and should be treated as non-reliable SPS.	the subject's name is credited in the video description as an announcer, nothing more	✘ No
https://www.csindy.com/Promoted/archives/2018/08/07/local-announcer-dawn-dawson-goes-to-indonesia-for-2018-asian-games		local alt-weekly Colorado Springs Independent, not useful for notability		✘ No
https://www.ijsba.com/australian-national-championships-april-29-30/	about own event: "the AJSBA is proud to once again present the highest level of jetsports competition in Australia says President"	presumed reliable for WP:ABOUTSELF material	passing mention: "This year we welcome... Dawn Dawson providing expert commentary..."	✘ No
http://www.blowsionsurfslam.com/news/	website about own event	presumed reliable on basic facts	passing mention: "Esteemed Surfslam announcers Mike Young and Dawn Dawson will be on hand all weekend assisting the web stream" (archived)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

☆ Bri (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried to find an archived link for that colarado springs business journal link on wayback machine and in the csbj's own archives, but failed. I agree with the source review that the other references are passing, promotional or not-independent. --Spacepine (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Women, Television, Advertising, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 São Paulo King Air F90 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Per WP:COOKIE "a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest". Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. A small plane crash that isn't inherently notable at this point in time. --Spacepine (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spacepine not notable for you? This article has international notable. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Vitorperrut555: - notability on Wikipedia can be complicated! Other people have posted links explaining below, but as an example, have a look at the disambiguation page for São Paulo plane crash and the articles linked there. --Spacepine (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a major enough crash to get a wiki page. Lucthedog2 Talk 05:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the others, or alternatively, redirect to Beechcraft King Air#Accidents and incidents where the crash is mentioned. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article about Brazilian airplane crash has notable international. How this article is not notable for you? If you think this article not notable, delete somes airplane crash you think not notable. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vitorperrut555: The participants in this discussion are using the term "notable" to refer to the Wikipedia:Notability (events) guideline page, which describes a test that is used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own Wikipedia article. They're not using the term in the common English sense to imply that the topic is unimportant or uninteresting. There are a ton of very interesting topics in the world that just aren't within Wikipedia's scope, and they are saying that they feel that this event is one of them. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (Personal attack removed). Lucthedog2 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to fall Under Wikipedia:OSE, this accident by itself is not notable due to what little impact it had, article may be able to be cited on Wikipedia:GNG also for the lack of secondary and tertiary sourced outside of large news outlets. @Vitorperrut555 Lolzer3k 21:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moh Saaduddin

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:JOURNALIST. Lack of notability has been tagged since January 2019. — Chrisahn (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collabrification

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

Article about non-notable neologism which seems to exist to promote a research direction from one specific research group. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TheDragonFire (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mull, Indiana

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

Appears to have been a short-lived post office, not a town. It certainly isn't one now. Mangoe (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This post-dates the Tucker History and the Scott Gazetteer. The best hope is the Arcadia book on Randolph, but that has no Mull at all. A 1899 USPS directory indeed has
Mull, Randolph ………… Ind
So I have a post-office with zero scope for expansion, and half the present article being a falsehood. Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears as both Mull and North White River on the 1952 Maxville USGS topo: [41], but looking pretty much as it does today, a rural crossroads with nothing around. A post office for four years? Big deal. No information per other users' research. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "North White River Ch" is the North White River Church in the GNIS database, at 40°12′27″N 85°04′23″W / 40.20750°N 85.07306°W / 40.20750; -85.07306 with feature code "church". No, there's nothing about that in the books, either. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moralist (disambiguation)

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

I seem to keep coming across redundant and unnecessary DAB pages like this. The entries include a WP:PTM (French Moralists); a redundant, superfluous, and frankly confusing reference to Wiktionary; an extremely niche video game faction; and a redirect from a phrase not used at its target that is at best a PTM anyway (Scientific moralist). In accordance with WP:PARTIAL, if this DAB page were cleaned up, all that would really be left are Moralism and The Moralist. I think a hatnote on the former acknowledging the existence of the latter will suffice. — Anonymous 02:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Social science, and Disambiguations. — Anonymous 02:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The moral ist that dab pages shouldn't exist where IMO there is only one legitimate entry: The Moralist. The rest are partial matches and things related to moralism, not what a dab page is for. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin Creek, Indiana (neé Scott Corner, Indiana)

I have mixed feelings about this, in large part because it is an African-American place, and the documentation on these tends to be sketchy. The issue here, however, is that once again the article does not accurately relate what the thesis (which is the only source I could find outside GNIS) says about the place. The key failure is in the statement that "it was the home of several families [of] free African Americans", because it says that about the whole Cabin Creek Settlement. The "Scott's Corner" part pertains only to the store, due to the name of the proprietor. It doesn't actually say there was a town there, and it doesn't say that people lived at the corner. At least, that's how it reads to me. And it's basically an isolated intersection now, and furthermore, the aerials indicate that the two houses on the NE corner are recent, and that there was once another building on the SE corner which disappeared around 2010. It might have been the store at some point, or maybe not. It would be nice to find something else to go by, but for instance the county history (which was written early as these things go) doesn't mention it. So reluctantly I think this will need to go unless someone can find better verification. Mangoe (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randolph now, eh? I was wondering what county was going to be next after Jay. ☺
The interesting thing is that the Tucker History does have an entire section (p.134) on the "Cabin Creek Colored Settlement" which has a lengthy laundry list of Scotts. It seems that Cabin Creek, Indiana (running from 40°10′07″N 085°09′45″W / 40.16861°N 85.16250°W / 40.16861; -85.16250 (mouth of Cabin Creek, Indiana) on the White River to 40°03′50″N 85°04′05″W / 40.064°N 85.068°W / 40.064; -85.068) is the real subject here. It has a fair number of sources both as the settlement and as a creek.
The severalfold irony is that the rôte GNIS mass-importers did not give it to us because (a) the GNIS record had it marked as "stream" not "ppl", and (b) the second GNIS record for Cabin Creek that said it was an alternative name for Lamb Ditch, which leads from Cabin Creek at 40°08′38″N 85°08′02″W / 40.144°N 85.134°W / 40.144; -85.134 (mouth of Lamb Ditch, Indiana) past its name at 40°07′16″N 085°07′46″W / 40.12111°N 85.12944°W / 40.12111; -85.12944 (label of Lamb Ditch, Indiana) right to this "Scott Corner", which in turn the GNIS said was "canal" with no clue that it was part of the Cabin Creek true populated place that is in the history books.
Uncle G (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Batcycle

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

Pure plot summary and list of apperances; the bit on development is unreferenced and there is no reception, not even any listicles. Fails WP:GNG and my BEFORE failed to find anything that's not a plot summary. Since it's just plot, not seeing what we can do here except merge a few sentences (lead?) to Batman#Technology. (If anyone cares, Batsub was just blodly blanked and redirected looong time ago without any AfD... there was also a Batboat, I think). The concepts are mentioned briefly in the suggested redirect target - that's probably enough for now... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Batman#Technology. There is at least some commentary in secondary sources on individual incarnations: [42], [43], [44], p. 70, [45], [46]. Daranios (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Daranios. Some decent hits, but nowhere near enough for a viable article, though viable merge targets exist. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Per WP:NEXIST. Got SIGCOV in Batman's Arsenal, Batman: The Ultimate Guide as well as an Article on the Batpod. I wouldn't be surprised if there's more out there, given this is Batman. A lack of willingness to perform improvements to an independently notable topic is not an excuse for deletion or merger, which should be done when something is non-notable or massively overlapping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but these sources are almost entirely plot summary, with the exception of the Batpod, which is dev info that feels more fitting at the respective film's article. Guidebooks really can't help with Wikipedia:SIGCOV, as they're basically wholly plot summary, failing Wikipedia:NOTPLOT, as there's no content in there that shows how the subject has had a real-world impact. You can't even argue that the fact it was included in the guidebook was noteworthy, because the guidebooks include quite literally everything Batman-related, including several subjects deemed non-notable in past AfDs, such as the Batboat mentioned above.

I will also note that this exact argument (including these exact sources, bar the Batpod one) was used in the Batboat AfD, where it was determined to redirect the article despite the presented coverage. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:21, 19 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!} 02:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The appearance history from Batman's Arsenal is really quite impressive. The presented sources have a lot of plot summary, but I believe all sources taken together provide enough material but also enough commentary to have a full article which also fullfills WP:NOTPLOT. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La calandria (1933 film)

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

Unreferenced film article other than IMDB. Not clear this passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative ~~redirect~~ to the director, Fernando de Fuentes. My search on Google books turns up single-sentence mentions, but I'm not seeing enough to meet WP:GNG. It's quite possible that there's significant coverage in contemporary Mexican sources, so feel free to ping me if better coverage is found. Zeibgeist (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the page. Sources literally abound, having the film meet Wikipedia:NFIC at least. -Mushy Yank. 09:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeibgeist pinging you at your request. -Mushy Yank. 10:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (strong) See page please. -Mushy Yank. 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable film. Sources have been added. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my !vote to keep per WP:HEY. Nice work by Mushy Yank on the expansion. Most of the book citations are single-sentence mentions, like I found in my original search, but on balance I think there's enough to meet GNG. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:GNG with sources added by Mushy Yank. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkarnain Saer Khan

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

The individual Zulkarnain Saer Khan partook in the orchestration of a dossier denominated All the Prime Minister's Men. Consequent to the helping of this dossier, he was the recipient of a commendation entitled the Global Shining Light Awards. The Global Shining Light Awards is bereft of eminence or substantial prestige in any capacity. The mere attainment of the Global Shining Light Awards does not fullfill the criteria of notability (person), as the dossier All the Prime Minister's Men itself fails to consummately fulfill the stringent prerequisites of notability.

Furthermore, the article is an absolute dearth of elucidation absent his academic credentials. Additionally, the article harbors superfluous and extraneous verbiage, including allusions to assailments perpetrated against his brother. Hydronex (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just checked all the references and they seem above board. Meets point 3 of WP:NJOURNALIST, played a major role in creating a well known work (All the Prime Minister's Men). His career has also received WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals states:

"The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

But no other work by the individual in the article can be found apart from All the Prime Minister's Men, and All the Prime Minister's Men is neither a significant nor a well-known work. This means the individual does not fulfill point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Hydronex (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All the Prime Minister's Men is definitely a well-known work. It got wide coverage in Bangladeshi and some international media apart from Al Jazeera Media.[47][48][49][50][51] [52] Al Jazeera also won the top prize for "Best Human Rights Journalism" (investigation category) in the 8th annual Amnesty Media award for 'All the Prime Minister's Men'.[53] Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable investigative journalist in Bangladesh. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 08:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable journalist in Bangladesh. He is widely recognized for impactful investigative work with Al Jazeera and OCCRP. His contributions, media coverage, and awards meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria WP:NJOURNALIST.

— Cerium4B —Talk? • 11:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cerium4B (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Koshuri ^(グ) 13:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Koshuri Sultan, He hasn’t asked for any support in his favour. He has just asked me to take a look. Maybe because this article is related to Bangladesh. [54] — Cerium4B —Talk? • 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is the responsibility of those who vote keep to provide a solid argument. Nothing can be gained from canvassed or paid votes. The article is highly promotional and lacks neutral tone. It overemphasizes achievements while downplaying controversies, making it more like a PR piece than an encyclopedic entry. The subject fails WP:NBLP, as most coverage comes from sympathetic or affiliated sources rather than independent, in-depth analysis. NXcrypto Message 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Hrksmp for removing your Keep. NXcrypto Message 14:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines. Multiple, reliable sources in the article. ConstantPlancks (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. But, at the least, this should be a redirect to All the Prime Minister's Men which I'm surprised editors arguing for Delete didn't mention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrov

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater. Fails WP:NSKATE; no international senior-level medals, no national championships wins. On-line searches yield nothing beyond databases, scores, or a passing mention in articles detailing her previous skating partner, who went on to have more success than she did. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:36, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this article has already been brought to AFD (just last month) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:37, 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!} 01:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super culture

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

"Super culture" doesn't seem to be an established term in anthropology. The book referenced actually says "To correspond with the term "sub-culture", a new term "super-culture" might be invented..." which suggests to me this is a term that was only used by few people. I don't think this warrants a redirect to "Culture", given that "Super culture" would be a very uncommon search term if it's not in use in anthropology. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Behavioural science and Social science. Kylemahar902 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the paragraph in Culture#Description, where subculture and counterculture are already defined. A single sentence to acknowledge little more than the fact that the term has been created should be sufficient. The sentence in the nominated article "Super-culture is a culture encompassing several subcultures with common elements" with its source should be sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Miyagishima

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

Former mayor of Las Cruces, New Mexico, which has a population of ~110k. Looking at the List of mayors of Las Cruces, New Mexico, the only one besides Miyagishima who has a Wikipedia page is Albert Johnson, who is obviously notable as the first black mayor anywhere in New Mexico. I don't see an argument for why Miyagishima rises above the notability level of a standard Las Cruces mayor. Between the news coverage already cited on the page and what I could find on Google, everything seems pretty run of the mill to me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Mississippi, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am going to put the suspicious timing of this proposal aside and try to comment on the merits of the proposal. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or notable activity in office (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell). Such activity need not be crimes. There are also people like Brandon Bochenski who meet GNG for unrelated reasons and just happen to now hold office. Points weighing in favor are that Las Cruces, New Mexico is the second most populous city in New Mexico. WP:POLOUTCOMES states that mayors of regionally significant cities can generally meet GNG. First person of Japanese-Mexican descent specifically. That is just too into the weeds to warrant its own article. If he were the first Asian-American to hold such a position in the state or multi-state region, I could possibly be persuaded that this could become a keep. Points weighing in favor of deletion are that he does not appear likely to meet GNG even with the points in favor. There is also fluff designed to mask a lack of notability. From 1998 through 2000, he was voted "Best County Commissioner" in a local newspaper readers' poll. or He is also the second person in Doña Ana County to have been elected both chairman of the Doña Ana County Commission and mayor of Las Cruces. When politicians meet notability criteria, this stuff does not appear in their articles.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of this nomination was not a coincidence at all. I first found about Miyagishima's page when he was added to the 2026 NM-Gov race as a potential candidate. I immediately thought he wasn't notable and nominated the page for deletion. It feels very weird to see Jeff Singer--whose reporting I have cited on Wikipedia dozens of times at this point--spreading conspiracies about me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I was trying to get ahead of the allegation and instead just boosted it. Sorry. I created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazi Melesa Pilip and got dogpiled on so I really should be more sensitive to that.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The expectation of a stand alone page for a local government official is significant coverage of the official's accomplishment and legacy while in office. The KOAT source cited in the article does have a couple short paragraphs about his accomplishments in office. However, there are a other sources that do discuss his legacy in office in more depth that are not currently referenced - this Channel 4 News segment, this KRWG story, and this story in the Las Cruces Bulletin. --Enos733 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the articles you cited are retrospectives published after Miyagishima left office and the third is about him expressing interest in a return to politics. All three are from outlets local to the Las Cruces area. That's all coverage you would expect to see for a local elected official, and IMO all three are examples of run of the mill coverage. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While this would not count on its own, the subject was quoted in the NY Times, "It’s a challenge,” Mayor Ken Miyagishima said. “If you look at the history of America, they left England because they didn’t really want to be told what to do. I think that’s in the fiber of Americans.” He was the featured mayor in an AP article published in 2019 that talked about the rise of mayors of color (that was picked up by the Canadian Press. He was also featured in a story that ran in the Chicago Sun Times (and other papers) about Super PACs engaged in local elections. Yes, there is a lot of coverage by the local paper, but these other sources show interest outside of New Mexico. And while we generally discount coverage of a statewide political campaign, that coverage cannot be completely ignored. - Enos733 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT article only mentions him once and the AP article has one brief paragraph about him at the beginning of a longer story. The Chicago Sun Times article is better but it's mostly about the Super PACs, he's only mentioned incidentally. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that being the lead feature/vignette in a national publication is much more than run of the mill coverage, suggesting the subject is "worthy of notice" (WP:N). If all we had is one paragraph in source A and one paragraph from source B and one paragraph from source C, then I would agree with deletion or AFD. But in this case the NYT, AP, Chicago Sun Times (and other) stories expand on the local coverage, showing that the subject is noticed outside the local area. I also continue to think that the local coverage of this subject would be sufficient to meet GNG on its own. I also have not looked at every article that mentions the subject, which numbers in the 1000s, and even in the hundreds outside of New Mexico - Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG with significant coverage independent of the subject in ABQ Journal, Las Cruces Sun News, Las Cruces Bulletin, local network affiliates, this AP piece, and coverage found by Enos733. Arguments about the size of Las Cruces or how many other LC mayors have wikipages are irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Your point ignores Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. This at face value covers all you mention except the AP article. If there were more coverage of that scale (ideally with more depth than provided by the AP article), it might be different. I do see another user mentioned other coverage, but I'm not persuaded there either.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumawood

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

No evidence of notability. Three deadlinks and all but one of the remainder are affiliated or interviews. Only the BBC source reliably confirms the existence of Kumawood. Searches reveal social media sources but nothing that amounts to a WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and Ghana. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Nothing that configures notability or any relevant redirection to WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if you search for news coverage about this award you will find plenty, especially from local news outlet. Have you consider these? FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kindly keep. This article is notable and it speaks or provide insights to the Ghanaian local movie industry specifically in Kumasi. Jwale2 (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [55] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple academic sources discussing Kumawood as linked in the previous comment above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet, but "keep" !voters are invited to share specific sources rather than asserting notability or linking to a list of search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Velella: It is always a good idea to try to fix dead links in any article you think might need to be deleted. InternetArchiveBot (talk · contribs) can do this automnatically. In this case, InternetArchiveBot was able to rescue three of the dead links. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh.... - as noted in the nomination, my own searches found many sources including those now restored. However, none of them, in my view, demonstated notability. Many are affiliated and even the source from "New African Cinema" only has two brief mentions which is well short of conveying notability. Several others are interviews with the CEO and clearly affiliated. I do, and will, restore sources where I believe that an article justifies keeping, but where the sources are clearly too weak, my efforts are better directed elsewhere IMHO. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Woodman

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

A promotional vanity page and almost certainly an WP:AUTOBIO by a non-notable individual. Fails WP:NOTRESUME, WP:NOTPROMO. Fails WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources. Fails all criteria of WP:NACADEMIC as a relatively junior researcher with a low to mediocre h-index of 7 and no evidence of passing on any other criterion. The sources are entirely limited to institutions with which he was or is affiliated, or to his own articles. WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else qualifying. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given above. FYI: I and another editor removed large amounts of content - mine because my opinion was that it did not contribute to notability and the other editor stated reason as content was promotional. So the cuts were not of content that would support keeping the article. David notMD (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, Saudi Arabia, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete For the reasons stated. Wp:too soon for any of his journalism work too. --Bruebach (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: With such a low h-index, does not pass academic notability. Rest is simply confirmation of work/studies done, which is just this person doing their job. Might be TOOSOON, but I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as above, far WP:TOOSOON and he has a long way to go for WP:NPROF, and I don't see support for any other type of notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]