Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< March 12 March 14 >

Purge server cache

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn based on sources identified. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Jean-Didiace Bémou

[edit]
Jean-Didiace Bémou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. The added source confirms he became a singer but I don't he believe he meets WP:MUSICBIO. We also need multiple reliable sources to establish notability. His athletics career does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT or WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 13 March 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.

D'Andrea Walker

[edit]
D'Andrea Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was the acting executive of a medium-sized county for a grand total of 4 days – while there is some coverage of her appointment as administrative officer, coverage is completely local and fails WP:SUSTAINED. Redirect to Baltimore County Executive. charlotte 👸♥ 23:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KK Park

[edit]
KK Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reported from Chinese Wikipedia Users, this article is wrote by AI. (Especially the last half part)--DaqibaoQi (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its AI, I think its just badly written by an individual for whom english isnt a first language. An LLM wouldn't make an obvious mistake like
"After criminal accusation, they also run gamble business as new source of income" 2601:204:C500:2B73:65FB:3852:434B:74D0 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per OhanaUnited. Notability is not an issue. Any content that doesn't match the sources due to AI hallucinations can simply be removed (unless there's nothing left in the article after that, which is clearly not the case), and sentences can always be rewritten. In fact, that was exactly what an editor did to zh:KK園區 in mid-January to save it from deletion. I assume that copyediting everything in the article is daunting for you, but nominating it for deletion straight away is not a wise move in my opinion. ItMarki (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notability stuff, it may be related to copyright of large language model generated stuff. DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The KNU has been under pressure over its alleged involvement in KK Park and other illegal activities, and has faced demands for the resignation of some of its senior members.[3] The resource is not mentioned that. DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
workers at KK Park are subjected to 17-hour workdays and are frequently spied on, tortured, and threatened with murder when attempting to flee the compound.[10][16] It only mentioned that「一些試圖逃跑的人被抓回後遭受了酷刑」 DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Passports and cell phones of workers were confiscated to prevent unmonitored communication with the outside world. The complex includes supermarkets, hospital, restaurants and hotels to form a closed community. Illegal organ harvesting was also reported to take place inside KK Park.[3] It only mentioned「妙瓦底的詐騙園區」will take the smart phones away，but not mentioned「超市、醫院、餐廳、旅館等」 DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The KNU has announced that it will investigate five of its members accused of having connections with KK Park, and that it will cooperate with China and Thailand to rid the border area of crime.[17][3] is not same as resources. DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 2025 Wired (magazine) report identified KK Park as active and noted that Starlink now played a key role in providing internet connectivity.[18] is not mentioned「KK園區很活躍」，but mentioned 其在用星鏈 DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
19 is Chinese，but it is focused on「緬甸電詐」but not「KK園區」 DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And there are many other same issues. DaqibaoQi (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In 2023, the Indian embassy in Yangon requested Myanmar’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for assistance in rescuing and repatriating Indian nationals who were trafficked into KK Park.[3] India Embassy let Myanmar to help is「一位印度受害者」（他向《亞洲本週》展示了他與 印度駐仰光大使館尋求幫助的通信，以及該大使館今年 4 月發給緬甸外交部請求支持的信函。） DaqibaoQi (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Ministry of External Affairs tracked and identified fake job recruitment agents within India.[20] the source didn't say it is a KK Park agent or not. DaqibaoQi (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thai government terminated power supply to KK Park and Shwe Kokko area to dampen the criminal activities in this region.[9] This source is mentioned that is electricity shut down is due to military government did not pay the electricity fee. (Please notice the time) DaqibaoQi (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The US government noted in the 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report that the Myanmar government did not effectively address the continued expansion of the human trafficking operation for the internet scam companies. The US government criticized the junta government that it made negligible efforts towards victim identification, protection and prevention. US government also noted that while the junta government has updated the legislation on anti-trafficking and that sentencing for the human traffickers was stringent, the law enforcement and prosecution efforts has decreased in areas that are managed by various ethnic armed organizations.[21] This is Myanmar conditions, but not KK Park DaqibaoQi (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- thanks for going through and bringing up the specific issues, I agree that there are issues. I don't believe it's at a bad enough state to call it AI-generated or worth WP:TNT. The correct thing to do would be to edit that last paragraph to remove unsourced materials, basically rewriting it. I am happy to edit that paragraph in line with what the sources actually say/clean it up this weekend and agree that many of the cited sources do not support the materials.EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 16:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : KK Park is a notable criminal hub. And this no any evidence indicate the article written by AI. Cloud29371 (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mindvalley

[edit]
Mindvalley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPA continues to remove redirect to restore this blatantly promotional article about a non-notable company. Recommend deletion or forced restoration of the original redirect. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: see ANI for context. Janhrach (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This user appears to be UPE, but I fail to see how this company isn’t notable unless all of those articles were sponsored. Mistletoe-alert (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as the original article has been draftified, yet the creator ignored that. They should not be rewarded for edit warring. Janhrach (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Janhrach. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 19:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Education, Spirituality, and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Insanityclown1 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hello everyone! I am the one who created the article. I have removed the self-sourcing parts and included only not self-sourcing sources. Mindvalley is indeed a notable company (look at their social media). Can you guide me please on what i need to edit for the article to be kept in wikipedia? I am new here and I really think i followed all the guidelines with my last edit. Thanks in advance all!Sofia Evangelidou (Sofia) 10:28, 7 March 2025 (CET)
  • Much of the article at hand is unsourced and probably false. The cited sources for the few parts that supposedly are sourced range from a vague handwave at the top-level page of some celebrity WWW site that does not mention the subject at all through CEO interview puffery to outright false sourcing of supposed celebrity endorsements that make no mention of this whatsoever when checked. I don't know how Google Books has been manipulated into giving all sorts of celebrity books as a result, but a few spot checks reveal none of them actually mentioning this subject at all. I have no objection to Special:Diff/997465541 from the original edit history being restored to its rightful position in article space, but this other edit history is advertising masquerading as an encyclopaedia article. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ok, then i suppose i have to start over since it's considered promotional. If possible, i could do some more edits though and re-consider deletion. Also, regarding "as the original article has been draftified, yet the creator ignored that. They should not be rewarded for edit warring. Janhrach (talk) ", I didn't have the "move" option then, so i just started over and created a new one. I will delete the draft. Sofia Evangelidou (Sofia) 10:28, 7 March 2025 (CET)
    I removed it - can you help me on what more i can edit to avoid deletion? Sofia Evangelidou (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have restored the struct-out keep; striking out is sufficient, see WP:TALK#REVISE. Janhrach (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This article almost certainly will be deleted. You can work on the draft and the submit it to WP:AfC. (See Wikipedia:AFCREVIEW.) (Note however that the ANI discussion still hasn't been closed.) Janhrach (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several things here worthy of saying.
    First, when I draftified the article, I did not intend you to move it on your own back to mainspace after edits, but to submit it to WP:AfC, preferably after discussion with the editor who blanked it. Okay, this could be my failure to communicate clearly.
    Next, I failed to notice that when you restored the article, it was not (missing word added 14:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)) identical to the blanked version. This was partly because I did not pay enough attention, and partly because you failed to fill the "edit summary" box when restoring it. But let us compare the different restorations:
    1. [1] – (original creation vs. the first restoration) – no difference
    2. [2] – (first vs. second restoration) – significant phrasing changes, promo toned down, but still is promotional, and sourcing is still insufficient.
    3. [3] – (2nd vs 3rd restoration) some primary sources removed, without any replacements.
    4. [4] – (3rd vs 4th restoration) minor tone-down, a few primary sources removed (without replacements, again).
    You did not attemt to discuss the article, even after it has been labelled as promo several times, until this AfD has been opened. You did not improve sourcing at all.
    Third, do you have any COI to declare?
    Finally, we sign our comments using four tildes, i.e. putting "~~~~" at the end of a comment.
    —Janhrach (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very very much Janhrach!
    1. I can work on the draft and submit for review after doing more edits - however, when i try to edit the source of the draft, i cannot see a "submit for review" or something similar as an option. Should i somehow use the "move" option to make it re-appear? Is there a way to just delete the draft and start over?
    2. Yes, indeed, i didn't fill the "edit summary" box - thanks for pointing out its importance, i was not aware that it's important to update it every time.
    3. I didn't know that we could start a discussion about the article - it was the first thing i'd do. I saw that it was labeled as COI and self sourcing, so i removed the self sourcing, edited and removed many parts and toned it down. I thought it would work but sadly it didn't so i am currently re-working on its content.
    4. I work in a Marketing agency and we want to create a wiki page for Mindvalley. Sofia Evangelidou (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "I work in a Marketing agency and we want to create a wiki page for Mindvalley." Has Mindvalley engaged your agency to do this work? Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:05, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was our initiative, proposal and idea. We believe Mindvalley needs a Wikipedia page and it should already have one, because it's an renowed company, and we decided to take the initiative to create one. Sofia Evangelidou (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you or anyone at your agency been in contract with Mindvalley or anyone associated with Mindvalley? Also, proposal to whom? Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions for submitting are at WP:AFCREVIEW. You (It must be you, not me.) need to put {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft.
    You need to disclose that you are paid. See WP:UPE and WP:PE. Undisclosed paid editing is prohibited by the Terms of Use and under some situations may be illegal. Janhrach (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much Janhrach!! I will start over since this will be deleted as far as i see and add {{subst:submit} and i will also read about how to add that i am paid in WP:UPE and WP:PE. I will also check how to start a discussion for an article because it would have solved many problems. Thanks again!! Sofia Evangelidou (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Janhrach & @Bgsu98:) Can I edit the Draft:Mindvalley i had created and submit it for review once ready, or do i have to wait for this article to be deleted first, so there won't be any confusion (they will have the same names). Thank you in advance!!Sofia Evangelidou (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sofia Evangelidou is an SPA who has done nothing but edit-war, after repeated requests to stop. I don't know what the connection between the subject and the creator is, but based on actions, there must be an undisclosed conflict of interest. "I work in a Marketing agency and we want to create a wiki page for Mindvalley," are her exact words. And although I was born on a Monday, I wasn't born last Monday. This is exactly the sort of offer of paid editing that I warned you all about at the last Wikimedia event in Brooklyn that is one of the greatest risks to us. This is exactly the sort of thing that will get our charitable status yanked faster than an exploding SpaceX rocket. The argument to keep because the newbie merely didn't know any better is untenable in 2025. Everybody knows that we are not a free social media platform after 24 years. Administrators have a fiduciary duty to protect us, in this case by salting the article and permanently blocking the user. Yes, I'm willing to die on this hill. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In some aspects I agree with you, in some aspects I agree less, but I don't find it implausible that the requests to stop could have been construed as requests to rework the article. Janhrach (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have bridge from lower Manhattan to Long Island to sell you. /snark Bearian (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Bearian. Drushrush (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Promo marketing spam; fails WP:NCORP; do not redirect. The sources do not pass WP:ORGTRIV, with the possible exception of this one, but even that one is mostly an WP:INTERVIEW with the company's founder. Many sources do not even mention the company and seem to be included in a misguided effort at WP:SYNTH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is absolutely a WP:BROCHURE, and there's nothing else that really needs to be said about it. I see no evidence of notability, and even if this company was notable, there's nothing in this article worth saving - it's just too far gone. MediaKyle (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': I tried to clean up the text of the article to see if there was anything worth saving in there (I dont think there is). I tried looking for any independent source but the best I could find is a russian university mention talking about education systems. /mention/ Moritoriko (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High-risk people

[edit]
High-risk people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Messy and confusing combination of risk factor and social determinants of health with psychology's concept of risk-seeking and some WP:COATRACK about COVID. Sourcing doesn't justify a medical concept of "high-risk person". Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Is this messy? Yes. Is this notable? Yes. Is it WP:TNT-worthy? Maybe. Bearian (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes merge. Or delete. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TNT is needed here since this article is a WP:OR based on one reading of "high-risk persons". There is another use of the term to talk about people who pose high risks to others, for which the term "high risk population" or similar phrases are used in criminology (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] -- for a small sampling). I don't mind if the content is merged to page where COVID risk factors are discussed, but this term should not be redirected there since it is used for several different purposes and we are WP:NOTDICT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, there is still not a consensus on whether Merge or Deletion is a more suitable outcome for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Spiritual Practices

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Council on Spiritual Practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP, with the objections in the last deletion discussion also seeming to hold; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Spiritual Practices. Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments for Deletion, Keeping and Merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blutzbrüdaz

[edit]
Blutzbrüdaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about a student film does not pass WP:NFILM. There is currently only one reference attached to the article, and a complete lack of independent, reliable coverage based on my WP:BEFORE search. MediaKyle (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-Tight discography

[edit]
B-Tight discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Tight. Discography for a hip-hop artist with no evidence of notability. MediaKyle (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Bøchmann Melchior

[edit]
Hans Bøchmann Melchior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NACADEMIC. No sources found on Google Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B-Tight

[edit]
B-Tight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reference on this article is an AllMusic biography. My WP:BEFORE turned up virtually nothing. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B-Tight discography. MediaKyle (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shonelle Jackson

[edit]
Shonelle Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any evidence of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources that significantly focus on him (except for a few paragraphs in a single New Yorker article). As it stands, this article fails WP:GNG because I cannot find any evidence that he, or his crimes, had any lasting relevance that is not simply routine coverage. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the New Yorker article is definitely sigcov, calling it a few paragraphs is understating it. Haven’t checked for other stuff yet and one source can’t prove notability but just wanted to note PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alabama. Shellwood (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As PARAKANYAA noted, calling the coverage in the New Yorker article a "few paragraphs" is quite misleading — it is a lengthy feature article that is more or less exclusively about this case. There are even a few sources about the New Yorker piece itself [11] [12] (although to be clear I don't think these contribute independently towards notability). Beyond that, these two pieces in the Los Angeles Times [13] [14] also qualify as SIGCOV in my view. There's also a brief discussion of the case in at least a few academic sources [15] [16]. It seems to be most notable as a commonly cited example of judicial override in Alabama, and has received coverage for that reason over an extended period of time. MCE89 (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BC Vision

[edit]
BC Vision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic fails WP:ORG. BC Vision is a registered political party and is technically active, but it has not fielded any candidates since 2013. Expectedly, I found no in-depth coverage (or coverage at all) in reliable sources. Results-wise, the party has been (was?) quite unsuccessful even by minor party standards, garnering less than a tenth of a percent of the popular vote in the 2013 general election and less than a quarter of a percent in the 2013 by-election in Kelowna West. Yue🌙 22:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find even one bit of coverage on this party, which actually kind of surprised me - I'd think any new political party would be mentioned in the news at least once. I'm not surprised they didn't make waves. MediaKyle (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Engine (CIG)

[edit]
Star Engine (CIG) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not the subject of WP:SIGCOV. Despite the WP:REFDUMP here, all substantial coverage appears to derive from WP:PRIMARY and other non-WP:RS such as youtube, reddit, chats, wikis, and Wikipedia itself. I previously attempted WP:DRAFTifying, but the creator has put it back in livespace. Apparently, that option is off the table. JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. JFHJr (㊟) 21:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As i see you are a VERY old user and i, on the other hand, joined 1 and half a month ago. Still it is beyond the matters od date we joined. I would like you to state and reason and i would make revision to create an article for knowledge and information. Neither i want to harm wiki and neither to play with it. I use wiki all the time and i know how it feels to be falsified. thank you. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Are we supposed to discuss something? I would wish a reason to accept a deletion criteria since i stressed myself for 3 days and 72 hours to write this thing which is about a game engine. You cannot just come and say 'hey how about delete it' and be okay with it. we have to discuss the reason and play mutually rather than delete-delete games. Sys64wiki (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obinna Richfield-Anah

[edit]
Obinna Richfield-Anah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Résumé-like WP:BLP of a "knowledge management expert", not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria.
As always, people are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party reliable source coverage about them and their work to establish its significance -- but this is referenced to a podcast interview in which he's doing the speaking (a primary source that does not constitute support for notability at all) and a single piece in a digital news platform of at best questionable reliability or GNG-worthiness given the longstanding WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA problem with checkbook journalism.
It takes a lot more than just two weak sources to make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a work in progress, primary sources will be added to enrich it Olabisi11 (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks like a WP:BROCHURE to me. No evidence of notability, I was unable to find anything resembling significant independent coverage. MediaKyle (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LG AI Research

[edit]
LG AI Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draft, so we are here. I do not see WP:ORG level coverage in independent and reliable sources Star Mississippi 20:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tape Five

[edit]
Tape Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. They are prolific, but there is no indication that they have attracted any attention from independent media. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was unable to find any coverage, this article appears to fail WP:NBAND. MediaKyle (talk) 23:06, 13 March 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.

David A. Aitken

[edit]
David A. Aitken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:BIO. None of the sources appears to be about him, just one of the projects he worked on. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party

[edit]
Assyrian Progressive Nationalist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N, although there are small numbers of sources that discuss the party, most are not in depth regarding the subject; Google News and Books searches bring up only a few results as well Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State-Based Control

[edit]
State-Based Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The vast majority of citations in this article are to the article author's self published book (see comment here). Most of the rest are other self-published sources, whitepapers and such, from 'Emerson Automation Experts' or employees of Emerson in other venues. What remains are cites (such as 'Control Global' or 'OnePetro') that do not mention the topic of the article. I've looked and haven't turned up any better sourcing, and the author of the article has stated on my user talk that their self-published book is the only one on this topic and there is 'not much out there' otherwise. Since we have very few (1, I think) reliably published sources - and no sources independent of Emerson automation - It would appear this topic does not meet WP:GNG and ought to be deleted. I'm not aware of any more specific notability guideline that this might pass instead, MrOllie (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify -- it's possible that more sources of coverage will emerge than just him and Emerson, but until there are a significant number of independent voices commenting on this idea there shouldn't be a Wikipedia article. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This statement feels like a WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the Insite and discussion. I am new to Wikipedia and I am learning.   I am reading through the Conflict of Interest material on Wikipedia, WP:COI  WP:GNG , WP:REFSPAM.  Please give me some time to read through those and I will get back to you.
I will stand by that my sources are reliable, even though there is a potential conflict of interest.   Also I am retired from Emerson, and nobody makes a significant amount of money from an engineering reference book.
I appreciate that you are saying that Wikipedia requires multiple sources for reference.   I would hope that there is a means to introduce new things to Wikipedia so that people can learn about them and grow knowledge in that area.  This technology has been siloed in a few companies  for many years, so as mentioned not much out there. It has great potential for benefit to humanity, through improved safety and productivity.
As Dow Chemical mentioned in reference 2, this technology enabled health and safety, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is also a type of automation that fosters human automation partnership.  So, offers a lot to learn on how to deal with AI. It is a very worthwhile topic.
To my knowledge there is at least one other book on the topic in progress, and in time I am sure there will be more.
This is something that people in industry should know about, and I hope we can find a way for the article to stay.  If not in its present form, then maybe some modified form. ProcessControlEng (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not here to get the word out about what 'people in industry should know about', see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Whether citations are reliable or not is only part of the equation here - Wikipedia also needs them to be independent, and every source we have so far that is on topic is related to yourself and/or Emerson. MrOllie (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG
"A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
From the above statement I take that Wikipedia articles are only suitable for well-established topics.  There is simply not much available on the topic of State Based Control. I accept that Wikipedia is not the place for the article. ProcessControlEng (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Noolands

[edit]
The Noolands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a band, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claims here are the existence of singles and EPs (where NMUSIC requires full-length albums), airplay on the local radio station in their own hometown (where NMUSIC requires playlisting on national networks, not just individual commercial radio stations), and having been booked to play a cancelled local music festival (where NMUSIC requires a national tour that actually happens) -- and the article is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources, which are not support for notability, and purely local coverage in their own hometown, which is not sufficient to demonstrate more than strictly local notability. The only more than local source present at all is used solely to verify the cancellation of the festival, and does not constitute support for the notability of The Noolands.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the band from having to have a stronger notability claim than just existing, and better sourcing for it than just a small handful of hometown coverage in Barrie's community hyperlocals. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Source review:
Rationale for draftifying: the band might end up getting bigger? No reason to wholesale deleted the relatively well-cited article. Significant coverage other than interviews does not really seem to exist, and what there is is pretty local. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilley's Dallas

[edit]
Gilley's Dallas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability GA-RT-22 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that Gilley's Dallas is not related to the earlier, famous Gilley's located in Pasadena, and has nothing to do with the movie Urban Cowboy. GA-RT-22 (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - Gilley's might be a lot of things, but lack of notability is not one of them. Urban Cowboy was filmed in the original Pasadena location. It was based In Pasadeba Texas 1970-1990. I think they closed the Pasadena location and are now operating out of Dallas since 2003. — Maile (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Even says on their website the current Dallas location opened in 2003 and has kept the spirit of the original Gilley's alive. Unknownuser45266 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hooop!

[edit]
Hooop! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any actual sources aside from boardgamegeek.com or sites attempting to sell the game. Does not seem to meet notability criteria. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gourd Creek

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gourd Creek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has previously been redirected per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourd Creek and per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mill Creek (Little Piney Creek tributary). It has recently been restored with one change: the addition of this source here. The issue with this source is that it never talks about Gourd Creek, even in passing , and that the extrapolation of the relation of this Gourd Creek Cave to the creek is, strictly speaking, WP:OR.

post-nom edit There is now a second additional source here but only with passing mentions and thus irrelevant for determining notability. As I commented below, , the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention.

As these changes are irrelevant, we return to the reasoning given in the previous AfDs to redirect this page; I'd like to quote, additionally, WP:GEONATURAL: for example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Iseult Δx talk to me 17:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all editors involved in the previous two AfDs per WP:APPNOTE: @Reywas92, JalenBarks, Djflem, Premeditated Chaos, Vsmith, and Oaktree b: Iseult Δx talk to me 17:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I reverted the redirect because it was done without respect to the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia: information. Specifically, the redirect was not accompanied with the corresponding merge of information, resulting in a piece of unreferenced info in the target article. I expanded it beyond information available except name and location. The accusation in OR is plain ridiculous, but I added a ref with no less than from Smithsonian, which directly link the creek and the cave --Altenmann >talk 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A malformed redirect does not call for overturning an AfD. The proper thing to do is to then add references to the target article. I understand that this article has, for some reason, been a flashpoint. Now, the Smithsonian ref added after I nominated this page. As it happens, it directs to a pdf download which is malformed on my system; could you quote the relevant parts? I'll strike the OR if proved. Iseult Δx talk to me 18:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug>A ridiculous anti-AGF statement; buy yourself a better system I could have said, but whatever. The work is by Gerard Fowke (1855-1933), so it is in public domain. I will upload it to commons. --Altenmann >talk 18:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<hah>, it was already there: File:Bulletin_(IA_bulletin761922smit).pdf. --Altenmann >talk 18:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. A malformed redirect does call for the revert of a sloppy edit. Improper edits are reverted all the time. is to then add references, well, I made a different decision and implemented it. --Altenmann >talk 18:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! For reference, the excerpts are on 24-25 (only half of a sentence on the latter page) and 34 of the PDF, which correspond to 36-37 and 46 of the Commons file. The mentions on p.46 are demonstrably in passing, and so aren't relevant for determining notability. The former excerpt places Gourd Creek in relation to certain caverns, which is also a passing mention. I've struck the OR mention and have changed my nomination statement.
Regarding your other comments, I'm intrigued that you said that you could have made a flippant remark and chose to do it anyways. I don't see where I'm not AGF-ing, and the system comment isn't productive. In re the reversion, given that the consensus at AfD was to redirect the page, categorizing the redirect as an improper edit certainly is something. I appreciate your fait accompli, and that, I suppose, is what this discussion is for. Iseult Δx talk to me 19:06, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your "mention in passing" judgement. First, the Smithsonian source gives a number of important details about the creek, so you cannot call it simply "mention". Of course, the main subject is not the creek. Second, the description of the notable things found by the river is certainly relevant information. Certainly we will not write a separate article for each cairn found there, so IMO this page is a natural place to describe them; just look at Mississippi_River#Native_Americans. --Altenmann >talk 19:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I had a researcher's fun digging for information about this "Nothing Gulch" and realize that my position may be biased by a kind of "ownership feeling", so I am recusing from further discussion here per WP:COI :-) --Altenmann >talk 20:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what you call important I call routine. But I trust the community to have a healthy discussion about this and for the community to abide by the consensus found here. Iseult Δx talk to me 20:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Missouri. Skynxnex (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Those bits should be all that is required for "notability". Now, with the archeological bits discussed above it has even more notability. Is Wiki running out of room? Or do we need some celebrity to go skinny-dipping in it ... Vsmith (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stream is named and shown on USGS topo maps plus it passes under a US highway. Per WP:NGEO: A feature cannot be notable, under either WP:GNG or any SNG, if the only significant coverage of the feature is in maps, though rare exceptions may apply. In other words, maps contribute nothing to notability. I see no reason that passing beneath a US highway (or any other kind) should have any bearing on notability, and certainly no such exception is made in the NGEO guideline. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep: I suppose with the archeological items, it lends to notability... but honestly if the cave is on the NRHP, that would have more sourcing than this creek and is likely enough for an article about the site. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, obviously. I don't want to delete the information, and I resent the implication that my original redirect was in any way malformed or in opposition to Wikipedia's purpose. I do think that a few passing mentions do not demonstrate the kind of notability that demands the creek have its own article. Whether we merge it back up to Little Piney Creek (Missouri) or to an as-yet-created Gourd Creek Cave article, I don't care. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:00, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak only in the sense that this barely gets above WP:GEOFEAT, one of our more permissible guidelines - but it does clear that bar without touching. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or restore redirect? I'll note that while the "keep" !votes are more numerous, the rationales are for the most part not based on specific policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Frederic Swigert Jr. Memorial Fountain

[edit]
Charles Frederic Swigert Jr. Memorial Fountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear in any RS, other than a single entry listing it at the Smithsonian Institute. Should be merged into "Oregon Zoo." PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Oregon Zoo as an alternative to deletion. It's only mentioned within the context of the Zoo. It's a really cool sculpture, but I can't find any indication whatsoever that it is notable itself within a fine art or art historical context, aside from being in Smithsonian's database of public sculptures, and a mention in a book authored by his wife about the sculptor's life and work, which is a non-independent source. The current sourcing only mentions the sculpture within the context of the zoo. A WP:BEFORE search finds no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition to the Oregon Zoo target article, some of the content can also be used to improve the Richard Beyer article (the sculptor who made the work.) I am glad the sculpture was restored, and that people and especially children continue to enjoy it. Netherzone (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems like a reasonable fork if Wikipedia is going to cover the topic at Oregon Zoo, Richard Beyer, Charles F. Swigert, Fountains in Portland, Oregon, and List of public art in Portland, Oregon. In addition to the Smithsonian Institution entry, there are now citations to four Oregonian articles and other official documentation. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:46, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It does not pass WP:GNG - there's a passing mention in the local newspaper, a link to a database site, and two primary sources linked to the city. SportingFlyer T·C 22:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone page. With wide coverage in the reputable source The Oregonian, the sculpture meets GNG. It may be in the Oregon zoo, but that's just a logical location for the work of art and not a merge magnet. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not wide coverage, they just appear to be passing mentions, two of the three of which are from the days before and after it opened. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Generic small fountain/sculpture with minimal coverage insufficient to pass GNG. The Oregon Zoo has a variety of artwork and features that should be covered in the main article; separate pages aren't needed for details like a transcription of the plaque or a 30-year-old condition assessment. The Oregon Zoo's own website doesn't mention it and I can't even find a photo of it on Google or Flickr besides the low-res one on the Smithsonian database, so notability is not at all shown. Artworks aren't notable or need a separate page just because we have other articles about their location, artist, subject (nope, the newly written article is about the subject's father) or thematic topic (none of which are particularly long). Reywas92Talk 15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oregonian's detailed descriptor of the statue in their 2 August 1983, issue, seems like a reputable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple sentences is hilariously not detailed...still only one source and not enough to need a separate page for. Reywas92Talk 22:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J.W. Restaurant Group

[edit]
P.J.W. Restaurant Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Not sure this meets WP:CORP; bulk of references are primary; secondary coverage seems to be establishing it as existing locally, but not establishing it being notable. 50.202.176.117 (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Copied from Special:Diff/1280135359 Primefac (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right at Home Realty

[edit]
Right at Home Realty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails wp:org; cannot find notable, significant coverage. That this was primarily written by a spa whose only reference is a blog post does not help Good day—RetroCosmos talk 18:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in future house

[edit]
2025 in future house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think this article has enough notability to exist; its parent article, Future house, also has notability issues. There are no citations and I struggled to find any at all. Anything can and should be merged into the parent article until the genre becomes more established with more coverage to warrant "years in" articles. jolielover♥talk 18:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Beyond being a clear failure of the WP:GNG and a very half-baked attempt at an article, the truth that is this is too narrow of a genre to support these sorts of articles in the first place. 2025 in hip hop music is sustainable. 2025 in crunkcore is not. Something like 2025 in electronic music is probably do-able, but these articles take a lot of effort to get going. If anyone is serious about that, it would realistically require a lot of time in the WP:DRAFT space. You can't just churn out a couple sentences and thinks its an appropriate summation of an entire year. Sergecross73 msg me 19:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RedactedHumanoid (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Bird Farm

[edit]
Ellis Bird Farm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No WP:SIGCOV. fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 18:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Low Taper Fade (disambiguation)

[edit]
Low Taper Fade (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with an inappropriately piped redirect that isn't already covered by the "See also" section in the hair. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Chakravorty

[edit]
Vinayak Chakravorty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage about this journalist; references are either mentions or articles he has written. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tar Heels

[edit]
Operation Tar Heels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a problematic article to have kicking around unsourced. Only other references to this I can find online appear to be mirrors of this article. I looked up Lieutenant Stephen Boada, and he did in fact receive a silver star, for an operation called "ENDURING FREEDOM". See [28] [29]. Not sure what to make of it. MediaKyle (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Median of the trapezoid theorem

[edit]
Median of the trapezoid theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated at incorrect venue (RfD) by Dedhert.Jr with rationale "An article might not have notability for having its own article, and possibly to be deleted instead." — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 08:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a recently promoted draft; the draft version was very badly sourced, and what you see instead as the nominated version is my attempt at cutting back the excessive calculations and proofs and providing adequate sourcing for it. I used 19th-century mathematics textbooks as sources, not because this is 19th-century mathematics, but because those are easier to use in finding online but reliable sourcing for basic and obvious statements in mathematics. The draft author disagreed with my cuts but unfortunately has been temporarily blocked for incivility so cannot yet comment here. Some of this material is already present at Trapezoid#Midsegment and height but with even less detail and worse sourcing (MathWorld). —David Eppstein (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My intended is already explained below, @David Eppstein. I am planning to redirect the theorem into the article. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You may think you explained your intent clearly but it was not clear to me. I do not think that replacing the content currently in the nominated article by a pointer to a worse exposition of the same material, with worse sources, buried in the middle of the trapezoid article, is an improvement. In any case by initiating this AfD you have already moved past the point where deciding on your own to perform WP:BLAR would be ok; instead, we have to wait for the outcome of the discussion to determine what to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment If the original nominator Dedhert.Jr agrees the new version is sufficient to meet notability I will gladly withdraw as a Speedy Keep. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 09:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC) oops, ineligible for speedy keep since it was a procedural nomination — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 09:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VolatileAnomaly It was intended to redirect the article. What I meant "possibly to be deleted instead" is when the article has fewer sources supporting it and too short content, it will be deleted, so the only option is to redirect to the article Trapezoid. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dedhert.Jr do you think there’s any content worth saving in the current version of the article? If so, a merge could be appropriate. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 16:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volatile and Dedhert, can you please explain why a stub-length article with three book sources and with all content footnoted to all three source has too few sources for its content and why you think that means it should be deleted? How many sources would not be too few for this length? See also WP:Citation overkill. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am neutral towards the outcome, just wanted to hear some clarification from Dedhert because I’m not sure what outcome they desire for the article (whether BLARed or Merged or something else). — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@VolatileAnomaly I think I will retract this proposal since some of the users prefer to preserve it. Guess I have no comments on this. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr as this was a procedural nomination due to an incorrect venue, I can't withdraw this nomination. As David Eppstein mentioned, we'll have to wait for the outcome. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 04:06, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see then. My bad. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment SteveLosive, the creator of this article, has responded on their talk page: A theorem about a trapezoid shouldn't be included with the Trapezoid article because that's an article about the shape in general. The Pythagorean Theorem isn't merged with the Triangle article. The Median of the Trapezoid theorem is meant to be purely metric and it's about finding the length of the median through a formula. It's a separate study and it even includes finding the median of a parallelogram that is within a trapezoid. It's an extensive topic and that theorem has proofs and studies. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 19:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear user:David Eppstein, could you explain this edit where you deleted my proof ("Construction proof") without giving an explanation? Summer talk 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did give an explanation in the edit summary. It was unsourced. WP:NOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You still deleted it after I've cited the proof. I just hope you don't delete it again after @VolatileAnomaly provided a valid source just like how someone who actually cares would. Also, regarding Coordinate Geometry Proof; just because you did a Ctrl+F and searched for "Trapezoid" then couldn't find any, doesn't mean it's not related. Seriously, please stop. SteveLosive (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge – covering this topic at Trapezoid § Midsegment and height seems sufficient. If need-be the discussion can be expanded there (sourcing, pictures, etc. can be improved there), but we don't need to include proofs of every geometry proposition in Wikipedia. I don't think this particular metric identity is independently notable or rich enough in connections to make a high quality article about, and readers are better served by improvements to Trapezoid. If the content expands beyond the capacity of Trapezoid to accommodate it, I would recommend making an article titled Midsegment of a trapezoid which could discuss other aspects and connections relevant to the midsegment, rather than having an article focused exclusively on this particular identity. –jacobolus (t) 17:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only the bare statement of the theorem, not the elaboration and proof of the long version(s) of the elaborated article. Not independently notable and SteveLosive's edit warring to repeatedly reinstate their bad version of the article with unsourced material, likely-AI-written material, and bad sources (unreliable web pages that do not even mention trapezoids and textbooks without specific page numbers) is not helping. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Every part of the article is now meticulously cited. Had you exercised even a modicum of diligence in reviewing the revisions, you would have noticed this.
    2. I appreciate the inadvertent commendation of my writing prowess by likening it to "AI-writing." Flawless articulation is, after all, indistinguishable from machine precision. May you one day ascend to such a level of linguistic refinement, one unmarred by the clumsy missteps that so evidently plague your own discourse.
    3. You must decide, David: is it "unsourced," or are the sources merely "bad"? These are mutually exclusive assertions, and I suggest you settle on a single fallacy before proceeding.
    4. Your fixation on an explicit mention of "trapezoids" is an exercise in intellectual laziness. Allow me to simplify: citing a paper on rectangles in an article about squares does not nullify its relevance. I trust you can extrapolate from this rudimentary analogy.
    5. Lastly, I have no intention of allowing you to cannibalize my work, superficially rephrase it, employ your bespoke search methodologies to retrofit sources, and then christen it with an eponymous title, much as you did with Ccalmen’s work before masquerading it as “Eppstein’s algorithm.”
    SteveLosive (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have named nothing "Eppstein's algorithm"; any such names were bestowed by other people. And I have no idea who or what you are referring to by "Ccalmen".
    A source not mentioning trapezoids is very much relevant to the question of whether it is a valid source for claims that are specifically about trapezoids. If the claims can be stated in a more general way that better fits the source, then this is not really the article in which those claims belong. To put it another way, a source saying that the study of the properties of quadrilaterals is important is a bad source for a claim that this specific property of trapezoids is important; it doesn't logically follow.
    As for the rest: I think you also need to read WP:OWN, because you are acting very much as if you do not understand it. Nothing here is or should be your work: if you think you are making original contributions to the subject, or that other editors ought to respect the integrity of your writing and leave it unchanged, then you are on the wrong web site. The existence of 19th-century sources strongly suggests that belief in originality of this material is mistaken. (This is the kind of thing that could have been in Euclid, but apparently wasn't). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ccalmen's K shortest path routing that you later on called Eppstein's algorithm on your own Wikipedia article.
    Thing is I do understand WP:OWN, but do you? Also, despite having no ownership over what you publish / edit on Wikipedia, it is still very unethical to do what you do.
    Above all that, your "contributions" to Median of the trapezoid theorem were objectively vandalizing the article, and I simply keep an eye on it because of my passion towards the topic, nothing more, nothing less.
    P.S. Please be responsible and don't say things like "any such names were bestowed by other people", it's in your very own article, it's under your name, then it's your responsibility. Since you have so much time ruining other articles, maybe you should've focused on "your" article. Furthermore, it's funny to me how you talk about WP:OWN while claiming ownership of an article, saying "my Wikipedia article" instead of "a Wikipedia article about me" to acknowledge the "other people" you mentioned. SteveLosive (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be difficult to parse through the many layers of confusion here but just to start with the most basic: the article David Eppstein is a biography of the person David Eppstein, written by other people. (David has made a very small number of edits to it, mostly reverting vandalism, and none since June 2012.) The algorithm that people call "Eppstein's algorithm" was published in 1998. All edits to Wikipedia by User:Ccalmen happened in December 2012, and the version of the Wikipedia article K shortest path routing as written by Ccalmen correctly attributed work to the people who did it (this is the version of the article they wrote). The redirect page Eppstein's algorithm was not created by David Eppstein and has never been edited by him. Are there any other misconceptions I can help you with? JBL (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification, but I was just calling out David Eppstein for his alleged hypocrisy. SteveLosive (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is English your native language? You are the (only) person alleging hypocrisy, are the substantive basis of your allegation is hopelessly confused. --JBL (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    JBL's explanation above (re the David Eppstein article) is clear and informative, and it plainly and correctly refutes much of what SteveLosive was asserting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is. I know I am the (only) person doing so, but it's somewhat personal. Read the entirety of my talk page if you want more context. SteveLosive (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an utter trainwreck. Can folks please clarify whether the material is acceptable and whether there's a preferred location that isn't here, or what they desire to help this decision reach a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sad about this because a lot of people have obviously spent a lot of time on this, but my feeling is currently: Merge the diagram that shows visually what the median looks like, into Trapezoid#Midsegment_and_height (visual pictures explaining geometrical concepts are really useful to visual readers), but delete the current article (or make it a redirect if you want). David Eppstein's cut-down version doesn't contain anything more than is in the main Trapezoid article, so there's no point to it. The current longer version differs principally from the short by containing two proofs and a historical context section. The historical context basically states the obvious, that four-sided figures have been important to geometry for a long time, something that belongs in the main trapezoid article as it applies to every aspect of trapezoids, not just the median. The coordinate proof just states that if you work out the coordinates using schoolkid maths, the middle is the average of the top and bottom, and leaps straight to the result, so I'm not sure what reader it would actually help. The proof as a corollary of the mid-point theorem is currently sourced to a book review, which says of the intended source: "There is no apparent reason why this book should either have been written or be read: it falls surprisingly below its authors' usual standard. Even the diagrams are slovenly." a situation that doesn't inspire confidence (the book would have cost you 12 shillings and sixpence back then, too - that's what "12s. 6d." means). So if this proof is to be kept, I'd urge editors wanting it kept to find a better source. Elemimele (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree with you! I also admire your critical yet constructive take.
    The formula, the equations, and diagram(s) should be kept for visual readers as well as how they help define the theorem in general.
    The historical context should be merged, as I previously added it as a filler to make the article more rich with information.
    As for the proof, I'm not the original editor of it, but I did my best finding a source for it. Thing is, I published this article as a stub and it still is a stub, it's technically not anywhere near complete. I also might disagree on merging it due to it being a theorem. Usually every theorem needs its proofs and it could include things not directly linked/related to trapezoids.
    Is it fit to be a separate article? Not yet.
    Does it need more work to make it bigger? Absolutely.
    Should it be entirely merged? I don't think that's a good idea, but it's not the worst either. SteveLosive (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is never a justification for making an article "bigger" when its central point is mere bluster, and the rest of it just duplicates another article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're a biology guy, so don't go around calling well-founded mathematical theorems "mere bluster" as it just makes you lose credibility. I get that you like David and you're being defensive and all, but please don't add salt to the wound. Plus, you should read WP:STUB as well as the article we're talking about and understand it before you decide to give your "very useful" opinion. SteveLosive (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SteveLosive you are about to lose access to edit this discussion. Please step back, and stop casting aspersions or you will be blocked. This is a final warning Star Mississippi 21:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • To reiterate my position without a new bold !vote: I believe that the basic statement that the midsegment is the average of the sides should be stated in the trapezoid article as it already was, with better sources than it was. I don't see a need for a separate article, I don't see a need for providing proofs, and I don't see a need for a paragraph of bluster about how quadrilaterals are important. So the only things potentially worth saving from the nominated article are its sources and its lead image. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Trapezoid#Midsegment_and_height: From the incorrect venue nomination, to the edit warring, heated comments, and aspersions cast, I agree with Star Mississippi that this whole nomination has been a trainwreck to the point where I almost feel the need to apologize for kickstarting this mess. I initially wanted to stay neutral, but now I will make a bolded !vote per above to try and put things to rest. Yes, I added the corollary proof with a source that David Eppstein provided, but now I'm starting to see that it doesn't offer much to the topic. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 02:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Libes

[edit]
Don Libes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, because there is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most references are primary or technical sources rather than in-depth third-party discussions of Don Libes himself. The article reads more like a CV than an appropriate Wiki biography Neurorocker (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: for policy based input please. A Google Scholar page cannot be used to prove or disprove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for biographical sources, and there just aren't any. This person's software is documented, not least by this person. ☺ But this person xyrself is not. Which is why the article gives almost half its length to expect and in the other half has claims that I cannot source. For example, the claim to being first to port a piece of software is not sourceable. The original paper is silent on whether it was the first, and no-one else appears to have recorded it as such since. I cannot find a source that doesn't come from Wikipedia that records this person doing this at all, the available sourcing on this person's work being that poor.

    In fact, only people named Don Libes have written about Don Libes, everywhere.

    Excluding books where the author is Don Libes outright, I found a CRC Press book with a potted biography that looked promising, until I saw "Prepared by Don Libes." at the foot of the text. The person who wrote what Wikipedia now has is Donlibes (talk · contribs), replacing a much shorter article — which was, it transpires, written by Don Libes, since it was copied from xyr NIST autobiography (Don Libes BIO at the Wayback Machine (archived 2007-05-02)) with first-person pronouns replaced by third person.

    It is impossible, as we can see, for anyone to write a biography if one isn't one of these Don Libeses, which isn't how Wikipedia works. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland Party (United Kingdom)

[edit]
Homeland Party (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this party is relevant enough to merit its own page, and in my view it should be deleted. I can see the arguments for merging some parts of the page with the Patriotic Alternative's page or the page of Homeland's leader, but the page in its present state provides few reliable sources to see the keeping of much of the information on Wikipedia.

  • Regarding the sources of the page, there is little actual coverage of the party, with some talking about historic links of the individuals involved and several mentioning the party just in passing. Furthermore, out of the 30 sources in the article, 13 are primary sources, with some sections of the page solely built off press releases directly from the party.
  • Of the actual coverage of the party, the only direct national coverage has been a single article in The Times. Other coverage has been by minor or partisan/activist group publications.
  • Regarding the party's relevance in politics, at most it has seen the defection of a singular district councillor (and potentially some parish councillors, but this is unclear. The only election they stood in with this councillor saw them lose substantially.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinnnnnby (talk • contribs) 2025-03-13 14:29:21 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the proposed deletion of the Homeland party’s Wikipedia page, as the arguments presented do not sufficiently demonstrate a lack of notability under Wikipedia's guidelines.

    Homeland is an active UK political party with distinct leadership, policies, and electoral participation. While it is a relatively new organisation, notability is not solely dependent on electoral success but also on political activity and coverage.

    The party has seen the defection of an elected district councillor, which is a recognised political event. Even smaller parties with minimal representation have maintained Wikipedia pages, setting a clear precedent for Homeland's inclusion.

    The party has received coverage from The Times, a major national publication, which is a strong indicator of notability. Additional media sources also mention the party, and while some may reference historical links of individuals involved, that does not diminish the relevance of the party itself.

    While primary sources should not form the bulk of an article, they are not inherently invalid—many Wikipedia pages on political parties include primary sources to explain their structure and policies. The correct approach should be improving citations and expanding secondary source coverage, rather than deletion.

    Homeland is a distinct political organisation with its own identity, leadership, and activities. Merging with Patriotic Alternative would misrepresent the party’s autonomy.

    The suggestion to merge it with the leader’s page is also unsuitable, as that page (if it exists) is meant to cover the individual’s biography rather than serve as a substitute for a political party’s page.

    Rather than deletion, the better course of action is to improve the article by incorporating additional secondary sources where necessary. The party meets Wikipedia’s general standards for political notability, and its presence in UK politics, however limited is still verifiable and noteworthy. 82.38.150.83 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why do these lengthy rambling rationales always end with paraphrases of that "incorporating additional secondary sources" without pointing to any? Is there an LLM that has been trained to churn this stuff out or something? So far in this discussion, people have acknowledged one single substantial source, an article in The Times. The threshold for notability is multiple in-depth independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In fairness, the onus is on all of us to look for sources. And as you show in your other comment, that's not really hard to do in this case when they are there on the page. JMWt (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Don't censor stuff, it's a growing party thats going mainstream Yesyesmrcool (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not reading that wall of cope, but the page is here to stay. 170.62.100.236 (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unfortunately I think there are enough references from RS on the page to show that the group is notable. I don't really see that there is an argument for !delete here given that there are decent sources. JMWt (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination describes The National and The Herald as minor or partisan/activist group publications when they appear to in fact be mainstream national newspapers for Scotland. The Mackay and Morrison articles are on-point and in-depth, too. So with the already acknowledged The Times article, that's three sources, independent of one another and even citing sources of their own that are different to one another, that were already there. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of Independent Nationals

[edit]
Coalition of Independent Nationals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never won a seat and never won more than 0.1% of the popular vote. Not notable Yilku1 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Library Association

[edit]
Nepal Library Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject isn’t Notable. Lacks supportive sources. Written like an essay. Rahmatula786 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:11, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Bharat

[edit]
Utsav Bharat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Bharat , as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Bharat itself. The sources currently cited in the article are about Star Bharat, a different channel[30]. This means there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence or notability of Utsav Bharat as a separate entity. A redirect to Star Bharat might be appropriate. However, without such sources, the article should be deleted. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect? If the latter, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship of Legends Cricket

[edit]
World Championship of Legends Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 07:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This championship is approved by the England and Wales Cricket Board, And this league is being played with the all veteran legend players of Cricket. Is in every prime media, hence if someone tries to find the information about it on Wikipedia, and the page doesn't exist there will give a false hope to the readers about its authenticity. I request to keep this profile. If it will be deleted it shows the violation of rights of the wikipedia readers and users to get the information about a notable profile on Wikipedia. Nomadluck (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadluck
  • being played with the all veteran legend players of Cricket - see WP:NOTINHERITED.
  • page doesn't exist there will give a false hope to the readers about its authenticity - that's not how Wikipedia works, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
Vestrian24Bio 08:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Porsche Club of America

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Porsche Club of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be nothing more than a promotional page. Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent sources demonstrating significant coverage. Also smells of WP:PROMO. Madeleine (talk) 02:54, 7 March 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 14:14, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unida Christian Colleges

[edit]
Unida Christian Colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been unsourced since its inception in 2010. Fails WP:GNG Hariboneagle927 (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Matt Norman (basketball)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Matt Norman (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was routine coverage like this game recap from the Grand Forks Herald or this short piece from Mid-Utah Radio. JTtheOG (talk) 08:57, 6 March 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 14:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

City of North Sydney (neé City of Lower North Shore)

[edit]
City of North Sydney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources. I searched google and no results found. The page creator did not add any categories or links into the pages and it looks like a hoax. AyEfDee (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for: 
"City of North Sydney"
In books/documents 
Google Books
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
refseek
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives
Free English newspaper archives
In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal
The Wikipedia Library

Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central
Internet Archive
BASE  · Persée

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
  • Stone the bleedin'! I was thinking hoax, too. But this one turns out to be verifiable. Except that this wasn't the name, which is why you didn't find it.

    In 1962 the Minister for Local Government was petitioned by a requisite number of North Shore electors to use powers under Section 16 of the Local Government Act to amalgamate North Sydney, Mosman, Lane Cover, Hunters Hill and Willoughby to form a larger and alledgedly more efficient administrative area, to be called the City of North Sydney.

    — Souter 2012, pp. 349–350
    It's also on Larcombe 1978, p. 208. Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Souter, Gavin (2012). Mosman: A History. Xoum Publishing. ISBN 9781922057051.
    • Larcombe, Frederick A. (1978). A History of Local Government in New South Wales: The advancement of Local Government in New South Wales, 1906 to the present. Vol. 3. Sydney University Press. ISBN 9780424000374.
  • Delete. Even if is true that there was a petition, it doesn't make it notable. There have been many such petitions. Some of the facts stated in the article are very doubtful, like the centralisation of power under Askin over national parks, sewerage, water supply, and public health services, since these were always state matters.--Grahame (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY by Uncle G. The sources added are all independent, reliable secondary sources. There is also coverage in the newspapers of the time, as noted in this article. As an aside - I would expect amalgamations of local government councils in Australia to be covered somewhere in Wikipedia, but I can't find any articles about it, and Australia is not even listed in the article Merger (politics). The topic as a whole, and regarding specific areas, is notable - if there were a relevant existing article which this could be merged with, I might have !voted that way, but as none exists, it is better that this is kept as a separate article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you know, I rely upon people such as you for the newspapers; whilst I do the history books. I only have histories (but contemporary ones) saying that the newspapers had a lot on this. If there's any substantial interesting newspaper stuff that sticks out as a worthwhile addition, please give it a cite. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Imran Qadir

[edit]
Muhammad Imran Qadir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a bunch of Promotional contents. References are more than 60, but all fake just to support inline citations. Also seems like that the page is generated from AI. Nothing find notable that are meeting the criteria for the WP:BLP, also failed basic WP:GNG. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The length that someone went to fake the references is impressive, so much so that I would be inclined to believe they were AI-generated if it weren't for the fact that some of the fake references have been there for years. No independent references that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to create this article on Artificial Intelligence module and the response was same as the article is written here. Sackiii (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was only referring to the faked references in my post, but I'm not at all surprised that the article was AI-generated as well. Thanks for nominating. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Madeleine961 did you check out the references yourself, or were you relying on Sackiii's assessment? If the former, which references do you consider to be fake? If the latter, Sackiii is a sockpuppet and their nomination is likely to be in bad faith, given that the tags they added to the article were all inappropriate. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out three of the listed references in the article at the time I wrote the comment, and both led to 404s. I then looked back at the article's history to see how long the references had been there. Madeleine (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because, although the outcome appears clear, Sackiii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indeffed as a sock, so we need at least one more legitimate editor to agree with deletion to establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the nominator was a sock. And has a personal problem with the subject. His deletion statement claim is baseless as he wrote: References are more than 60, but all fake.
Therefore, it is requested to retain the article and remove the tags from the article which were placed by the sock on the page. Bestworkers (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Janata Dal

[edit]
Socialist Janata Dal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find enough reliable independent sources with WP:SIGCOV to establish notability for this political party. I note that searching is tricky because socialist Janata Dal (where the adjective socialist describes Janata Dal) and Socialist Janata Dal (a splinter group of Janata Dal I think) are effectively the same thing to search engines! It is possible that there are decent sources not in English, and if they were added to the article I would willingly withdraw my nomination. I had previously redirected this article to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but that has been widely contested by a COI editor and their related sock puppets in the past (see history), and now an IP user is reverting to the same poorly sourced material. Hence my nomination for deletion. I would support a redirect to List of Janata Dal breakaway parties but only if it were subject to extended-confirmed protection. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Bollinger

[edit]
Stefan Bollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting general notability. The available source are only of brief event-based nature - connected to his appointment as the CEO Unicorbia (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide me with a specific area where it does not meet the guideline?
Presumed - Reuters, Financial times etc have covered him
Significant coverage - Reuters, Financial times etc have covered him - a google search can find more info on him
Reliable - The content is largely based off the articles cited
Sources - Most sentences have one to two sources
Independent of the subject - None of the sources cited have been personally written by him WxProHaha (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 594 hits on Swissdox makes it hard to choose what sources to link here. From the NZZ alone, Bollinger clearly meets the GNG. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. Although his appointment was announced in the middle of 2024, he has only actually been CEO since 9 January 2025 (see link 4 above), so you can't really expect him to have tons of coverage unrelated to him being the new CEO...or can you? Links 1 and 2 above are actually not about his appointment as CEO! And from before his appointment, we have this interview with a short biography at the end [38] and several mentions in another article where he was interviewed as an expert [39]. Add to this that basically all of these stories and many more opinions have been covered in other outlets, like Reuters [40], this very in-depth piece in the Handelszeitung [41], Tages Anzeiger [42], and SRF [43]. Toadspike [Talk] 10:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabre Jet

[edit]
Sabre Jet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This dab page has only two good entries. It should be replaced with a redirect to the jet fighter, with a hatnote to the film per WP:TWODABS. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but remove the Sabreliner. The nominator is correct that the only plane referred to by the moniker 'Sabre Jet' is the F-86. The F-100 is called a 'Super Sabre Jet' and the commercial plane is a 'Sabreliner'. However when the F86 and the F100 are referred to together they have been called 'Sabre Jets'. It is not unlikely that a reader looking for 'Sabre Jet' might be looking for the F-100. It is not particularly relevant to this discussion, but there is a not-yet-notable snowmobile called a 'Sabre Jet'. I agree that the F-86 is primary, so this page might be downgraded to (content restored to) Sabre Jet (disambiguation) and referenced by a hatnote at North American F-86 Sabre, with Sabre Jet becoming a redirect to the F-86.  --Bejnar (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

[edit]
This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambig page whose only entries are non-existent articles. Fails WP:DABRED. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- every single one of these entries has an article on the author or album, where their work in general is discussed. This is a useful navigational aid. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahj al-Balāghah: The Word of ʿAlī

[edit]
Nahj al-Balāghah: The Word of ʿAlī (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This book hasn't received attention from any reliable, independent sources so far, and thus isn't notable. Fram (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Fram, thanks for your help with this. I have added a citation from a prominent news website regarding the book. Let me know what else I can do to keep the page. Thanks and all the best, Josh. Earlymoderneditor (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This one? "Our project is a multi-volume work which consists of more than 10 thousand annotations and footnotes. We are pleased to announce that, God-willing, this monumental work is scheduled to be published in 2025." This isn't an independent source, it is a press release from the publishers / translators. So no, it doesn't help. Fram (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which book? The unpublished book that the article at hand is pushing and telling us is coming out real soon now and is the first English translation, underneath a lengthy duplicate discussion of the Nahj al-balagha (which already has a translations section)? Or the published in 2024 English translation LCCN 2023-54675 by Tahera Qutbuddin? ☺

    The "prominent news website" turns out to be press releases from the organization founded by the (first) book's author, talking (10 days ago) in the future tense of "forthcoming publications" that have not happened yet, and that the world at large thus cannot possibly have independently documented outwith these autobiographical press releases.

    The Sayyid Amjad H. Shah Naqavi biography of a living person is cited almost entirely to autobiographical press releases, too.

    Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
Logs: 2025-02 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: what cewbot said.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Harry F. Moniba Foundation

[edit]
Dr. Harry F. Moniba Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unnotable. I couldn't find any outside coverage of the subject at hand. Article only has one source (guidestar) and is an orphan. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryota Kamino

[edit]
Ryota Kamino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Played 10 times before retiring in 2023. [45] Fails GNG. RossEvans19 (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birk Manufacturing

[edit]
Birk Manufacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article completely fails the notability requirement for companies/organizations. Little to no coverage, all I could find was mentions of ISO certification (whatever that means) and one article saying that they were going to do an exhibit at some show. The article is also unsourced (unless you count a link to their website as a source) and an orphan. Gaismagorm (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YOOV Holdings

[edit]
YOOV Holdings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prenews, businesswire, blogs, press-releases and no reliable independent multiple sources to meet NCORP. Cinder painter (talk) 12:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could've been a speedy delete under CSD A7. Limmidy (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EUROAVIA

[edit]
EUROAVIA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Repost of content previously deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Aerospace Students * Pppery * it has begun... 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has existed since 2017 and the previous AfD was in 2010. Can we get a full search for recent sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Euroavia is an international body of aeronautics students, one of its chief aims being "to foster a spirit of co-operation among the future members of the aircraft industry".

    — Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom (1964). Flight: The Aircraft Engineer. Vol. 86. IPC Transport Press Limited. p. 311.

    Euroavia is the Association of European Aeronautical Students, founded in Aachen in 1959, to foster social, cultural and professional links between students and thus engineers in Europe.

    — "Euroavia rides again!". Aerospace. Vol. 8. Royal Aeronautical Society. 1981. p. 5.
    Maybe it is the looking for recent sources in the World Wide Web for something founded in 1959 that is the problem. I can source that introductory sentence from 2 sources, which can replace the non-independent sources used for the same in this article. There appears to be non-English sourcing that should be investigated, too. There's something of some sort in a 1959 issue of Flugwelt. I suggest checking out the old aerospace industry magazines. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of a more thorough source search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.  https://biblus.us.es/bibing/proyectos/abreproy/92389/fichero/TFG-2389-LORA.pdf
2. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.IAC-06-E4.P.01
3. https://uia.org/s/or/en/1100001357
Any of these useful? 2A02:587:870F:5D7D:E1D9:BBEE:79D9:C4C1 (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Item #2 probably counts towards NORG. What I miss is extensive coverage in the news media. I will strike my delete, so not stand in the way of any decision. gidonb (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Found some more, not sure if they do
https://pace.txtgroup.com/future-innovators-awards-2025
https://aerospace.technion.ac.il/news/euroavia-takes-to-the-sky/
https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/Euroavia_students_design_Martian_aerial_vehicle
https://studyportals.com/student-associations/
https://nip.rs/en/news/1708-student-team-beoavia-winner-of-airbus-sloshing-rocket-workshop-2022-
https://www.athens-science-festival.gr/en/exhibitions/euroavia-athens/
https://blogs.mathworks.com/student-lounge/2024/11/18/how-the-airbus-sloshing-rocket-workshop-can-help-launch-your-aerospace-career/
There are these documents that hold legality, do they count?
https://euroavia.eu/documents/ 2A02:587:870F:5D7D:FCC0:B5BA:80D6:7828 (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EUROVIA Magazine 8th issue 2024: https://euroavia.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/EUROAVIA-Magazine-Issue-8-Digital-Version-1_compressed.pdf
Preview of the EUROAVIA History Book to celebrate 65 years of historyhttps://www.linkedin.com/posts/euroavia_euroavias-history-book-review-activity-7192120110709415936-Lu3E?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAACzlUsABqbVddr5SLgPisfojgPaOIPBBCBY 2A02:587:870F:5D7D:3582:405A:2A66:63E8 (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources are useless for establishing notability. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
EUROAVIA is a notable international association, fostering aerospace education and innovation across Europe founded in 1959, with over 32 local groups in 17 countries, fostering aerospace education and innovation across Europe. (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.IAC-06-E4.P.01)
It has been involved in significant aerospace projects, including:
There are also the sources mentioned above by Uncle G
I recommend retaining the article. 147.102.131.173 (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Agnello

[edit]
Bruno Agnello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brazilian player with almost no matches in Brazil, but with some spells in Portugal, Albania, Colombia and Peru in lower divisions, always accumulating less than 10 matches for the clubs (see Soccerway ([47] and ogol.com.br [48]). I don't know if it's a WP:HOAX or a case similar to the infamous Carlos Kaiser, but without WP:SIGCOV it seems completely absurd to me to maintain this article. Svartner (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Virginia fire departments

[edit]
List of Virginia fire departments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The material on this page would be better served on the pages of the specific localities. This page is missing departments, including that of the capital city (Richmond City is not the same as Richmond County). The topic itself is not inherently notable as the collection of Virginia fire departments cannot have received more coverage than the specific fire departments themselves. I would split it out but don't want to do that without seeking consensus. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 21:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The proposed target for a redirect has been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fire departments in the United States), so that's no longer a possible outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Complex/Rational 02:51, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted the same nominator did the AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fire departments in the United States above. What is the end goal here? – The Grid (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like the sort of page that was made and not really maintained because it is not a natural point around which to coalesce information. I would prefer that the information be added to the specific localities' pages, if possible, because I think that it would have some value and be more maintainable there. Alternatively, if someone were to come in and add coverage about Virginia fire departments as a subject, that would be fine; yet, I still think that the lists of departments and their equipment should live on the pages of the localities. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 23:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel)

[edit]
Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable book in Nepal. Sources are not reliable. As a book lover, I have never heard this name and its author. This is one of the Seventh articles Swapnabhumi (Nepali novel) , mirty diary, Sex desire and Taboo, Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal, Mochan, Running from the Dreamland the editor has made in a row on different books written by Tulsi Acharya. This attempt of writing articles on such books which is hardly heard in Nepalese context raises suspicion on interest of editor Rahmatula786 (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of resources and independent sources added as you suggested. Thank you for the guidance. Traillek (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mojo Hand (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LightOn

[edit]
LightOn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More promo nonsense about a non notable organization. It's all WP:MILL at best. CUPIDICAE❤️ 22:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company has been mentioned in independant and reliable sources. While not sufficient, it is also a publicly traded corporations listed on a major stock exchange Pollockito (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get an evaluation of these new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company has been mentioned in independant and reliable sources. It is also a publicly traded corporations listed on a major stock exchange Pollockito (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. None of the new sources provided any independent reliable coverage of the company itself. They are discussions of their products and the theory behind them, ultimately sourced to insiders. Most of the sources in the article are clearly press releases and/or churnalism but [51] [52] and [53] might be usable. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Dunlop

[edit]
Nicholas Dunlop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this biography of a climate activist, and added sources. I am not seeing significant coverage, however; most references are quotes from him about the various organisations with which he is involved. I do not think he is notable on the grounds of WP:GNG or of WP:ANYBIO. Note a recent addition of unsourced content here, which I reverted; without sources, which I have not found, I don't think there is much here contributing to notability. Redirect to World Future Council might work, although at the moment he is not mentioned in that article. Tacyarg (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would support maintaining this article as I can confirm that the person in question has made a significant contribution in particular to organising MPs at global level on climate change within the Climate Parliament. Much of his career was pre-internet which explains why there isn't that much online. I am CEO of a global renewables association and work with Climate Parliament closely. Dizzy4Real (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Per nom and Helpful Raccoon, I don't see how WP:SIGCOV and WP:ANYBIO are met. Most of the coverage in the article (and that I can find elsewhere outside it) doesn't really contribute to notability. In that almost all of it was written by the subject - or orgs with which the subject has an association. The others are in the "statements made by the subject in press releases" and direct interviews with the subject. Neither of which contribute to notability. That the article was created by an SPA/COI contributor (both here and on the DE Wikipedia) is also very difficult to overlook. (The AR Wikipedia equivalent was created by a bot...) Guliolopez (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded below on the main points, but please note I am not the creator or author of the article. I have only been active here in the past two weeks: I reordered the article somewhat and rewrote the introductory sentence, added a sentence on the "Supergrids" in para 1, but otherwise my work has consisted in adding relevant references. NicolasTavitian (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's hard to see how the newly provided sources support notability. Interviews and sources created by Dunlop himself do not support notability. The only sources I would consider are the Planet Champions book and the Evening Post piece. In the Planet Champions book, the author profiles various people he met while working as an activist, so I don't think his coverage of Dunlop can be considered independent. I have no idea how much coverage the Evening Post piece contains, but a single source is not enough in any case. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Helpfulraccoon and @Guliolopez. I beg to differ on the quality or reliability of some of those sources. Being the object of a case study in an Open University course is an indication of impact (note 10 - the Open University is the largest university in the UK). The Time Magazine article (note 2) is actually signed by a staff journalist. The apparent signature on the internet version is a mistake, as the mag's paper copy attests. Coverage in Time Magazine is surely relevant as well. Both BBC interviews feature Dunlop. I'll specify the relevant time slot in the reference as requested (notes 3 and 4). I don't see on what basis the book (Planet Champions, note 6) should be dismissed; it is a study of exemplary and impactful activists. WP:NBIO for an activist is not publicity per se but documented evidence of impact (from multiple, independent and reliable sources). Activists or advocates do not necessarily seek publicity for themselves but for their cause or ideas. The references should therefore be expected to provide sufficient evidence that Dunlop is recognized as having made a (significant) impact. They should not be expected to show that he is widely known in the media or in the public. I have additional relevant references to add, including from the NYT & other national papers. I will do my best to do this in the next few days and to correct or complete existing references as suggested.NicolasTavitian (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have now solidly referenced all statements in the text, except for the last paragraph. I have found quite a few other sources, but did not see the point of crowding the text with redundant endnotes. I also did not want to add to the text at this stage. If WB:BIO is still considered unsatisfactory, I will need to add details to the text. The reference to the Indira Gandhi prize is problematic because there is a mistake on the site: they placed a photo of 1988 laureate next to the name of 1986 prize winners PGA instead of the picture of the year's recipients; the fact that Dunlop received the prize on behalf of the organisation is documented elsewhere however. I also could not find references, only campaign material, in connection with the statements on di Caprio and rock band Crosby, Stills and Nash. NicolasTavitian (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I spot checked the references, and found them lacking. For example, this BBC news source doesn't mention him at all. Why is it cited in the article if it's nothing to do with him? In conclusion, there just aren't enough substantial references, which those arguing to delete mentioned above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a reference to EarthAction's campaign with diCaprio. EarthAction, is the organisation he directed. Does that address your question? As I say, that sentence otherwise still lacks references regarding work with the band.
    Can you specify which other references, if any, your find lacking? NicolasTavitian (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is the issue with the number of references? I can add more if that is the issue, there are plenty more. But I would have thought that the existing references in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the "career" section are now sufficient. NicolasTavitian (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cerego

[edit]
Cerego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This one may be close but appears to me to fail WP:NCORP. References from Venture Beat and The Next Web are churnalism based on the announcement of the company's launch back in 2012. There is this which appears to meet WP:ORGCRIT but everything else is routine announcements or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FORBESCON. I'd also think a company that is over 25 years old would have more than one WP:ORGCRIT reference from 2014 if it was in fact notable under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:16, 17 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! 21:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I believe it passes GNG based on the source analysis and mentions. Could be on a weaker side though NatalieTT (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)—WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 15:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious which sources would meet WP:ORGCRIT in your opinion.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WSJ, NPR, and the military publications are significantly about the company's product(s). I can't judge the reliability of the military pubs but they do provide information about product use that seems solid. That said, the article could use work if it's going to provide useful info. Lamona (talk) 04:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that WSJ satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH? Sources must meet WP:ORGCRIT and I do not see any, other than NPR, that would meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is what I am saying. And that I consider the military articles to be relevant and reliable. I also see other sources, such as:
  • "Cerego's iKnow! Wins Prestigious DEMOgod Award at DEMOfall 08." Science Letter, 30 Sept. 2008, p. 3270. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A185816485/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=aaa046a9. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
  • "McGraw-Hill Education and Cerego." Tech & Learning, vol. 35, no. 9, Apr. 2015, p. 48. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A419267807/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=04a4f19c. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
  • "Cerego." Training, vol. 56, no. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2019, p. 8. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A608614910/AONE?u=sfpl_main&sid=ebsco&xid=b3437ac8. Accessed 20 Feb. 2025.
  • CEREGO & BBC BITESIZE. (2019, March 1). Tech & Learning, 39(7), 39.
I looked at these and they don't seem to be re-hashes of PR (there is quite a lot of that). I haven't looked at how they might fit into the article. Lamona (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a routine announcement and the other are mentions so they fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH imho.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the WSJ, NPR and the military sources. And here's another one relating to Cerego and BBC: [59]. I count this now as 5 sources. One could argue that they are more about the product than the company, and that comes up a lot with products. Ideally the article should decide which it is emphasizing. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant plural - "the others are mentions so they fall short." - BBC may meet CORPDEPTH, but the rest, including this one you just cited, is considered a routine announcement so fails WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 07:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to the NPR and Military.com sources I also found an article in New Scientist [60] through TWL. A small section of the article that I think shows its value, including a comment from someone else about the company and its science.
" "It's all very plausible and reasonable. They know their literature," says Ryan Baker, an educational technology researcher at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts. "I haven't seen any commercial products that put together all these different things."
" Cerego doesn't yet have any published results to back up the claims made for the product. But Smith Lewis says they are working on this, and points to preliminary tests on language acquisition, run over five weeks at the University of Hawaii and reviewed by Cerego's scientific adviser, Jan Plass at New York University. In those tests, users improved their retention of factual material by a factor of three compared to a visually identical system that didn't run the spacing algorithm.
Additionally, this is a study[61] that used Cerego and spends a paragraph talking about it in what I think is their own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moritoriko (talk • contribs) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Some sources have been mentioned above but clearly, when examined through NCORP lens, they don't meet the criteria - for exampleL:
  • This NPR article mentioned above relies entirely on a "partner" and the company's blog post sprinkled with some extra marketing blurb - fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • The New Scientist article plainly relies entirely on the "launch" blurb for the company, repeating comments provided by the company and founder. Once you remove everything provided by the company, all that's left is the quote from Ryan Baker which says nothing about the company. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • Perhaps it wasn't noticed about the military.com article but the article is written by customers/partners - therefore not independent, fails ORGIND.
  • The BBC Bitesize article is - a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Delete. HighKing++ 15:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this one right now.
  • I would argue that the quote from Ryan Baker says 2 things; Cerego is using actual science to make its product, and 2, the product is a novel product. And it is as independent as you can get (afai can tell)
  • Military.com is not a partner of Cerego. It is a military focused news outlet but it is not run or operated by the US military. Therefore it is still independent.
  • BBC Bitesize, rightfully, doesn't count.
Further more my other source, the study from Queensland, is 100% independent. Even if they state some things that are also stated by the company to do the research they would need to be familiar enough with the software that they are saying these things attributable to themselves. And unlike the t.u. Jazz source this one doesn't appear to be a partner either.
Moritoriko (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's deal with each of your comments. Regarding the Ryan Baker quote, here's the thing. One you remove all of the stuff provided by Cerego, which is practically all of the article, the only thing of note left in the article is that quote. On its own, it just doesn't provide a deep or significant overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, or analysis" and fails CORPDEPTH. You are correct, I incorrectly assumed that military.com was organizationally connected with the US military in some way but it appears not - I was especially taken in by all of the "join up" stuff. That all said, the article itself is an advertorial and coincides with other similar articles on the same subject around the same time, such as Air Force Times, 10th Air Force website, Federal News Network and Joint Base San Antonio website. Based on all that, looks like the article is based entirely on information provided by the company and their customer and has no "Independent Content" by way of independent analysis, etc, just regurgitates info, same as in other publications, fails ORGIND. Finally, this article is about the company, not the product so the company does not derive notability from a review of the product. HighKing++ 12:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Branch (video game)

[edit]
Ground Branch (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a WP:BEFORE, but I don't feel like the sources from RPS and PCGamesN that only has minor details is enough to pass WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:35, 13 March 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arihant Publications

[edit]
Arihant Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

OK, this is a request by a identified paid editor to have this article listed at WP:AFD instead of outright WP:A7 deletion. I see no good reason to not honour that that request.

Let's look at the company's webpage first. It's garish, it's obviously promoting itself, but I see nothing else there that would indicate that it is nothing more and nothing less than a company that writes exam help books for tertiary students.

Let's look at at the references in the article. All I can see, other than The Economic Times mention, are listings of this company's books for sale.

What I see here is an article that would fail any number of tests for notability, including but not limited to, WP:GNG WP:NCORP and any other tests you might like to name.

I do note that this would appear to be as close as possible as the Thu 6 Mar 2025 content of the article under discussion as to meet WP:G12 speedy deletion.

As always, please do prove me wrong!--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC) 11:21, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:35, 13 March 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.

XTB S.A.

[edit]
XTB S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company is not notable, as per NCORP; the reliable multiple independent sources don't exist. Unicorbia (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhood Khalatbar

[edit]
Farhood Khalatbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non Notable MMA fighter with only 1 professional fight, doesn't have any fight with Top Tier MMA Promotions Rickyc123 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur

[edit]
MMI Narayana Multispeciality Hospital, Raipur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks Notability for a company/ Organisation Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've already added more news citations. Satipem (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please check now? Satipem (talk) 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've already added more citations about news. Satipem (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahgat Saber

[edit]
Bahgat Saber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think he doesn't meet WP:GNG due to lack of reliable resources that prove the notability. Only social media and some events that aren't notable. --Karim talk to me :)..! 11:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed (businessman)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Syed Ahmed (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable candidate in the early UK series of The Apprentice. Searching for reliable sources brings back nothing except a small amount of tabloid articles, which are not suitable. The article appears to have also been edited by the subject.

As the title has a "businessman" disambiguator, I don't think it's suitable to have this as a redirect to the main Apprentice article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources more than sufficient to demonstrate notability
  • Hussain, Ali (31 December 2006). "Apprentice star gets a taste for the high life". The Sunday Times. p. 13.
  • Rumbelow, Helen (20 June 2007). "Attack of the Apprentice clones". The Times. p. 23.
  • Mangan, Lucy (20 June 2007). "Last night's TV: Syed Ahmed - Hot Air?". The Guardian.
  • Zaman, Tamara (10–16 October 2008). "British-Bangladeshis who have made a mark". New Age Xtra. Archived from the original on 2008-10-30.
  • Matthews, Dan (2010). The New Rules of Business: Leading Entrepreneurs Reveal Their Secrets for Success. Harriman House Publishing. pp. 7–11. ISBN 978-1-90-665916-5.
  • Murray, Emma (2010). The Unauthorized Guide To Doing Business the Alan Sugar Way: 10 Secrets of the Boardroom's Toughest Interviewer. Wiley. pp. 111–113. ISBN 978-0-85-708085-1.
  • Burn-Callander, Rebecca (7 September 2014). "Ex-Apprentice star raises £1.5m for 'smart' eco hand dryer". The Daily Telegraph.
  • King, Katie (2019). Using Artificial Intelligence in Marketing: How to Harness AI and Maintain the Competitive Edge. Kogan Page. pp. 73–78. ISBN 978-0-74-948340-1.
Other sources that may be useful when improving this article

--Worldbruce (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article is in a bad way but he does have notability Rickyc123 (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ylber Idrizi

[edit]
Ylber Idrizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a pop singer that doesn't meet notability standards laid out at WP:NBIO. Current sourcing is mostly unreliable. Wp:BEFORE shows more unreliable sources but no reliable one. Please note that there is an existing draft at Draft:Ylber Idrizi. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RB Battles

[edit]
RB Battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:GNG. A user-generated competition in Roblox is not an encyclopedic topic without significant secondary sourcing. That sourcing seems to mostly be ProGameGuides and a 'How To' article from Dexerto - see WP:GAMEGUIDE. Without evidence of secondary reliable reception this article seems likely to be ro-blocked from entering the mainspace. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable subject, fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.J. Whelihan's

[edit]
P.J. Whelihan's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An ip user put this up for AfD, I am just relisting it for them. The same user also put an AfD on P.J.W. Restaurant Group. I think any information in this page can be on the other page instead. I haven't decided if that one should be deleted yet or not though. Doing the searches I just saw the bog standard promotional news of "new restaurant opening" etc. Moritoriko (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack's Bar-B-Que

[edit]
Jack's Bar-B-Que (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notabiity; only notability is its existence with little significant coverage. MimirIsSmart (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 07:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I've found some sources that seem to show that this restaurant could be notable. This one is from Texas Monthly [62], a decently large magazine away from Nashville. This is a small local article but it says that one of the restaurants is located on the site of a former state prison which could be a section in the article [63]. But overall I don't think that these are enough for it to deserve its own article, its just a run of the mill restaurant. Moritoriko (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kappa Alpha Lambda

[edit]
Kappa Alpha Lambda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability. The only source is the group's website. Significant portions are unsourced. Thorough search to find print and online sources was unsuccessful. Rublamb (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I deprodded this because its deletion without debate might be controversial. There are a few hits on Google news. I'll leave it up to you all to decide if that constitutes significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those hits pre-date this group and are for another organization. Rublamb (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 07:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DXXM

[edit]
DXXM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another Philippines radio station whose history and existence are only cited to government documents with no other sourcing provided that clearly fails the WP:GNG. Maybe redirect to Subic Broadcasting Corporation, but they also lease out the station to someone else. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian Medical Society

[edit]
Assyrian Medical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N, article generally doesn't meet notability guidelines and very few sources exist for the organization Surayeproject3 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken and chips

[edit]
Chicken and chips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All of the four sources are the *barest* possible passing mentions, zero are significant toward GNG. Just because chicken (fried/roasted/whatever) is, like many other foods, commonly served with chips/french fries does not mean that the combination is a specific dish that is notable or needs its own article. Unlike the well-established fish & chips, I am not finding sources that specifically discuss this as a notable set, just a parallel name. Nor do sources establish the mentioned "chicken and chip shops" is a specific thing, rather that shops that specialize in chicken also offer chips as a common side, and I don't think this is a necessary article. Reywas92Talk 04:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shridhar University

[edit]
Shridhar University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP, and is possibly AI-generated. Coords lead to a "Singhania University" about 40 km away from the actual location of Shridhar University per the website. The "Ordinance 6 of 2010" that supposedly created this university is about Agricultural Produce Markets as far as I can tell (https://assembly.rajasthan.gov.in/Containers/Legislation/Ordinance.aspx). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 04:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Arakawa

[edit]
Betsy Arakawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am just not seeing coverage that would make Arakawa notable enough for a separate biography from Gene Hackman. All coverage aside from some minor coverage from the 1970s and 80s (which doesn't substantiate notability on its own) is basically entirely about her relationship with Gene Hackman, and does not substantiate a separate notability. See also WP:INVALIDBIO That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional book

[edit]
Fictional book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following the recent and still ogoing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False document (2nd nomination) I was motivated to try to rescue that article (for result, see found manuscript, which seems to be the term used in literary studies - not sure if pseudobiblia wouldn't be more popular, however). But I also noticed we have the usual mess at fictional book. Surprisingly, I am not seeing that term used in RS in a way that meets WP:SIGCOV, although common-sense wise it would be a better place for this topic than the more esoteric terms I mentioned earlier. However, before any move, we should also discuss what to do with the mess at the nominated article: first, we have pure WP:OR intro, then de-facto list of fictional books, which has some references, not many. I couldn't find a list to support keeping this as a list (for WP:NLIST), but I expect someone might be able to dig something. The question is, should be just move the content here to a list (after presumably shortening the lead to remove OR) or just nuke it? And should fictional book be a disambig, or a redirect to the list, or to my new article, or should my new article be moved...? I'll ping editors who commented in the relevant AfD linked above: User:Blackballnz, User:TompaDompa, User:Shooterwalker, User:Pokelego999. PS. Interwiki (de/it) should probably be moved to my new article. It article lists some potentially interesting sources (but in Italian/offline...?), de is less useful, sadly. Neither is a list, they are prose (hence, a better fit to my rewrite). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC) PS. I did not notice yesterday, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional books (2nd nomination) existed - and was deleted. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What really surprised me language-wise is that sources often seem to use "fictional book" in the same meaning as "book of fiction. Which makes looking for sources hard but also may indicate that the idea is relevant but this should not be the article title. Still, what looks like a very promising source is Made-up Stories: What can fictional books tell us about real ones?, but I cannot access it. What I can access is Books Within Books in Fantasy and Science Fiction: “You are the Dreamer and the Dream”, which deals with our topic and our Wikipedia article, whatever that means for usability. Additionally, the sources used for that paper are likely relevant. Daranios (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I see that Found manuscript does seem to include this type in scope, as it has the Necronomicon, even though that does not fit the article title. A problem which would not appear for Pseudobiblia or Imaginary book, I assume. @Piotrus: I assume The Tales of Beedle the Bard or the Encyclopedia Galactica, which are one step further removed from the actual world through their universe, would fit in there, too? If that's the case I personally still tend to keep this and reorient it as a list as described, but a merge to Found manuscript would fine scopewise, too. Daranios (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios I am afraid it may be few days before I can research this more. I am all for rescuing this, but I could not find good sources. I'll review the ones you found when time permits (a cursory glance suggests they look promising). I'll note that common sense wise, found manuscript should be a subtopic of this, but the term is sometimes used to refer to fictional books too, which add a layer of confusion (see sources cited). Pseudobiblia seems to be a rare synonym, not often used in English. Sources may exist in other languages (ex. the Italian term seems reasonably popular and it wiki article cites some sources that may be worth pursuing). And yes, there are obviously notable fictional books (and found manuscripts), although the usual issue of "NOTLAUNDRYLIST" (WP:NOTTVTROPES) is an issue. If someone finds time to use the sources we have to write something and WP:HEY this, it would be great. Preferably not with a merge to found manuscript, as I think that is a separate topic (but again, sometimes this term is used in a confusing synonymous way...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sangonet

[edit]
Sangonet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to verify its notability and impact, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThere is a structural problem here; organisations from the "Third World" and the Global South tend to be less visible than their counterparts in the more affluent parts of the world. This does not mean they are less relevant or doing less important work; it just means that the media is not as developed in those parts of the world. Hence the reflection doesn't take place as easily. Please address this structural issue which I have been attempting to long raise on the Wikipedia. We cannot dream of a product which is the "sum total of all human knowledge" when "knowledge" is defined in such narrow ways. PS: I have created this page, and pages like this, for precisely this reason. Fredericknoronha (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get evidence of these sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not from me. I tried Bing News and there were no results at all. I tried Google News and the only thing that wasn't from the organization's own WWW site turned out to be a PR service that publishes press releases. I didn't look too hard at the books, but the first one was a disappointment. It looked promising, until I scrolled back to the top of the section and found that it was copied from the WWW site's own "about" page. The next book seemed to be sourced to every company's/organization's own WWW sites that it was discussing, too. A paper copy of a corporate autobiography is still a corporate autobiography. And it turns out that copying the corporate autobiography was exactly how this article began at Special:Permalink/17787890, too. (Current versions of that blurb can be found even today.) The added text in the current article comes from the software's description on SourceForge. The claim that the editor here wrote any of this appears to be false. Xe merely copied it. So it's no loss if we delete the Wikipedia copy of a corporate blurb that Wikipedia has been hosting for 20 years. Wikipedia is not an advertising billboard nor a hosting service for yet more copies of blurbs in addition to the ones that the organization itself has spread around. Uncle G (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not because of the comments by Fredericknoronha, which have no basis in policies or guidelines, but rather because a 2007 book called Home Informatics and Telematics: ICT for the Next Billion devotes significant coverage to Sangonet, as does a 2006 book called Empowering Marginal Communities with Information Networking, as does a 2002 book called Rowing Upstream: Snapshots of Pioneers of the Information Age in Africa · Volume 1, as does a 2010 book called Information and Communication Technologies, Society and Human Beings: Theory and Framework. And there are other books but that is enough to show that the topic is notable. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alas, it isn't.

      I see that you too found the 2010 book that explicitly says that it copied the corporate biography, but you didn't spot it. It's the one with the very same corporate blurb straight-up copied here by Fredericknoronha in 2005, updated from 17 to 22 years because it was copied the year before the book came out, and with the about page URLs in the text. It says 26 years on the LinkedIn copy, and 30 and 33 on a couple of other copies elsewhere.

      Google hides that 2002 book from me. But a quick title search prompts a question: Is its author, perchance, Anriette Esterhuysen the former Executive Director of SANGONeT, and is it written in the first person singular and plural? If so, it is more SANGONeT corporate autobiography in book form.

      The 2006 book chapter, if you scroll up to the chapter title, you will find comes from SANGONeT too. It's doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-699-0.ch010 and the author affiliations are explicit.

      That leaves the 2 paragraph 6 sentence treatment in the 2010 book. "Only two paragraphs?" you might ask. Yes. The rest, from the next paragraph onwards until it starts talking about QUALCOMM, is all about the Human Sciences Research Council's PRODDER and then about Women'sNet, another Fredericknoronha article.

      Uncle G (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inquisition (video game)

[edit]
Inquisition (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks notability. Can't seem to find any sources to the game that's actually about it and not Dragon Age. GamerPro64 02:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Roop

[edit]
Ted Roop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Canadian Country Spotlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actor and radio host, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or radio hosts, and a similarly poorly sourced article and semi-advertorialized about his show.
The attempted notability claim as an actor is a few small bit parts as a child actor in the 1980s, and the attempted notability claim as a radio host is small-market local radio stations, neither of which are "inherently" notable enough to guarantee a Wikipedia article without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for them -- but the article is referenced entirely to IMDb and other primary sources that are not support for notability, and has been flagged for notability concerns since 2017 without improvement.
There may also be a conflict of interest here, as the articles were both created by an WP:SPA who's never made a single edit to Wikipedia on any other topic but these. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco (cartoonist)

[edit]
Belasco (cartoonist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear in any RS, may not be notable PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belasco is one of the few openly black, gay erotic artists. Erotic artists are often neglected, compared to non-erotic artists. I think those characteristics are enough to deserve an entry in Wikipedia.
That being said, Belasco has also been published in Meatmen (comics), a very important gay anthology of its time. Another reason to keep this article.
If that helps, Belasco has a current and updated Patreon page at [66]https://www.patreon.com/BelascoArts Frpe01 (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm allowed to post again on the same subject.
A few more sources about Belasco's work:
The site for The Advocate (magazine) has a page, https://www.advocate.com/art/2021/8/25/miguel-angel-reyes-sketches-sexiest-men-world#rebelltitem1, for a 2021 online gallery including examples of Belasco's work.
The Advocate (magazine) also presented a 2013 show that includes Belasco's work at https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/art/2013/07/11/galleries-sexyblack
The page on the aforementioned gallery's official site is at https://antebellumgallery.blogspot.com/2013/07/sexyblack-opens-july-12th-antebellum.html Frpe01 (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have found and added a review of one of his books in Xtra Magazine. I'll look for more reviews and articles. If any of the previous commenters have offline reviews of his work, or articles about him, it would be useful to add them as references. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Miller (rabbi)

[edit]
Jason Miller (rabbi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Went through all the citations and the history of this article. It appears to have been started by the subject and all the citations are blogs written by the subject. This fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and borders on self-promotion by the subject SpeechFreedom (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So far as it being a vanity piece, it isn't anymore. The account, which appears to belong to the subject, was blocked, along with the associated IP address for Sockpuppetry.--Kerbyki (talk) 15:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:13, 13 March 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.

Soaring Association of Canada

[edit]
Soaring Association of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod. Sources added are all primary. I could not find indepth third party coverage to meet WP:ORG. There is no inherent notability in being a national association. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Canada. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several independedent references now added. This should satisfy the criteria for notability. JMcC (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as always, the fact that primary sources are used is not cause for deletion. The question is whether there are sources that could be cited, and I'd say that the evidence points to 'yes'. I note the mentions of SAC from 1946 ([77]), 1956 ([78] "SOARING ASSOCIATION OF CANADA The national gliding organization , the Soaring Asso- ciation of Canada , has been mentioned several times . It arose in 1944 from the need for a responsible body to represent glider pilots' interests to the Government, for a means of dissemination of news and information, and for a representative of the Federation Aeronautique International to issue soaring awards and homologate records"), from 1958 ([79], "Soaring Association of Canada , the national organization which now has 17 member clubs"), apparently issued pilot licenses around 1950 ([80]), organization involved in WWII efforts ([81]), same author ([82]), 1989 ([83], statement on prestige of SAC trophy), "...from the Soaring Association of Canada a Certificate of Honour for his creative work in the field of glider and sailplane design which helped to develop a constantly growing glider movement in Canada" ([84]), "[Soaring Association of Canada ( SAC ) was therefore formed in 1944 and a national charter was granted to the Association a year later . The first slate of officers elected was : J. A. Simpson , President ; Don MacClement..." ([85]), "... Soaring Association of Canada in 1944 sparked new interest , which has continued to the present day . The association , made up of 700 glider pilots in 28 clubs from coast to coast , marks soaring achievements by a traditional series of ..." ([86]), "... Soaring Association of Canada . This body has been approved of by the Department of Transport as well as the Royal Canadian Flying Club's Association and the representative of Federation Aéronautique International . The S.A.C. is ..." ([87]), etc. --Soman (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ju-ryong

[edit]
Kim Ju-ryong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Searches in google news, newspapers and books did not yield anything. So maybe this person has a different name? LibStar (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming a lack of findable information is due to differences in romanization of Korean. Do you have any guess at what romanization system was used, or know of Kim's full name in Korean? Sarsenet (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No LibStar (talk) 05:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At least based on my interpretation, it's written as 김주룡. I don't know if other websites use his name differently, though. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:19, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to A Mero Hajur 2#Cast. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salin Man Bania

[edit]
Salin Man Bania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor fails Wikipedia criteria. Given references doesn’t talk about his contribution in Nepali Cinema . It talks more about his debut film, where he has insignificant role. Not a single independent source. All the given sources are ordinary media. Article is full of promotional material. Rahmatula786 (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:00, 13 March 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.

Polit (operating system)

[edit]
Polit (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFT. The creator's website presumably contains almost all the coverage this OS has received. This coverage consists of an article written by the creator, a magazine interview with the creator, and a TV interview with the creator (practically inaccessible). None of this contributes to notability. I didn't find anything else when trying to search Ukrainian sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Hoffmann

[edit]
Jens Hoffmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of this article and am requesting a courtesy deletion. The only notable aspect to my career in terms of wide in-depth press coverage is only one event, and no other coverage reveals substantial public interest in my career - the rest are run of the mill sources or passing mentions. There has been a banner at the top of the page for seven years asking for additional citations for verification, and none have come forward that changed its status. I would ask for the community to delete my page, which I had no hand in creating. JHHM (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PlasticsToday

[edit]
PlasticsToday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage to indicate notability. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 23:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not entirely sure what I'm reading, which naturally means I'm not sure why this would be notable. Seems quite promotional or technical. Tried to Google this, but couldn't really find much. Page creator has also declared they are a paid editor for Informa on their user page and most of their contributions seem to be for Informa. Limmidy (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"