Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 25	January 27 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Primo Desiderio

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

No indication of importance. BEFORE reaveals no RS of substance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Country Demos (Bret Michaels album)

AfDs for this article:

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

AFD in 2008 resulted in a WP:SNOW redirect. Article has now been recreated as a refbombed coatrack for Bret Michaels biography. The EP is still non-notable; none of the sources demonstrate significant reliable source coverage. Restore redirect to Bret Michaels discography#Extended plays. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. Jfire (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive WP:BOMBARD/WP:REFBOMB situation. I'm not seeing what sources are actually supposed to be helping it pass the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summit, Hendricks County, Indiana

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

This one is pretty maddening, notwithstanding that Baker's statement on the name origin was completely misrepresented. (It's also likely not true, but that's another issue.) Anyway, the only "good" information comes from aerial photos, which are quite maddening. Basically this was a rail point on the old PRR mainline west out of Indianapolis towards Terre Haute. What the photos show is three phases. In the oldest phase, from the '50s, there appears to be some sort of industrial/warehouse concern here, possibly belonging to the railroad; this morphs into a different configuration sometime in the 1970s-early '80s, and then everything begins to evaporate, so that by 2003 the area is completely blank, which it remains today. And the only other thing I could find that I could definitely associate to this point is a page in a 1961 PRR employee timetable, which lists it between "Clayton" and "West Summit" and shows an interlocking and siding capacity here. The topos show multiple rail lines here, so one could interpret this and West Summit as being the ends of a small sort-of yard. But that's as good as it gets. This is an insanely difficult thing to search, because there is also a Mt. Summit in the state which is also a railroad point, and there is an Indiana County in PA. Trying to search including the county got lots of hits on the same useless geological report but nothing that said anything about this point. Other than the timetable I couldn't find anything railroad-related; if someone had PRR roadway maps it might show something but I couldn't find one; all my hits were on general system maps which do not even begin to go to this level of detail. At this point I think it was a rail point which supported some industrial business, but there's no sign anyone ever lived here. This is barely outside the Clayton city limits, btw, and there is nothing but farmland around it. Mangoe (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Serra

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

Fails WP:GNG. I tried to do WP:before, but I don't see any sources that talk about him at all in detail and per Wikipedia:LUGSTUBS . 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 23:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cycling, Olympics, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Durant III

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

This subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being chief counsel of an agency within a government department is not anything that would be inherently notable on Wikipedia. None of the sources are independent, non-trivial coverage of this person, they consist of:

Public records database
Schedule announcement that just lists his name and job title
Alumni spotlight. This is offline and not on the Wayback machine. If it were accessible it might be something, but we don't really know what it was.
Lawyer database entry
Linkedin profile
Official biography
Another official biography
Doesn't mention him

I googled and did a news archive search and just found more official releases and lawyer directory entries. An accomplished guy no doubt but I'm just not seeing anything that meets Wikipedia notability standards. Here2rewrite (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Military, California, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note on point 3, offline sources are entirely acceptable. Which isn't to say he passes NPERSON otherwise, it doesn't look like it, but the source 'not being accessable' is not relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was in a rare book library or something sure, it wouldn't be disqualified. But it seems to be lost entirely to linkrot and we will never know what it said, so it's not a usable source (unless someone can find it). --Here2rewrite (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Powercfg

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

Wikipedia is not a software instruction manual. Sandstein 22:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 22:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are at least three references with significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). These are all published in the Buffalo, New York area but that doesn't dissuade me from notability as the coverage is reliable and significant. It was difficult to evaluate this one because a number of the references were primary written by the subject and this wasn't indicated in the referencing (I fixed that). Again note that this article passed WP:AFC before it was published to the mainspace, a process which from my experience is a vigorous check of an article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is.
However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Watson, Stephen (June 21, 2004). "Iranian professor airs concern, criticism for land of birth". The Buffalo News – via newspapers.com.
2. Lazzara, Grace A. (Winter 2005). "One Voice - Nadia Shahram fights for equality" (PDF). Hilbert Connections Magazine. Hilbert College. pp. 6–10.
3. Vogel, Charity (April 25, 2010). "Women in the shadows Attorney Nadia Shahram's novel tells the true stories of Iranian women exploited by 'temporary marriage'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-08.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Macleod (art director)

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

Significant WP:BEFORE has brought up no reliable sources at all, and no evidence of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, Journalism, Visual arts, and New York. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent sources with significant coverage. [3] is not independent, and [4] is unreliable and almost certainly copied from Wikipedia itself anyway. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched WP:LIBRARY, couldn't find any significant coverage.

Jfire (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references at all in the article, and my search was as unsuccessful as those before me. Even if the claims in the article were supported, this is just basic art director employment that does not meet WP:ARTIST standards such as an artist whose work "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention." Asparagusstar (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian NINJAs

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

No notable pro wrestling tag team. Just worked on the independet promotions. No in deep coverage about the team from third party sources. [5] A few mentions of them winning the title, but most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE results from events no focusing around them HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D.B.T. David

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

All I could find of him online was passing mentions, and few of the sources cited appear to actually mention him. Draftified once, and moved back with the only changes made being removal of some references. Wikishovel (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Christianity, and Tamil Nadu. Wikishovel (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ada I. Pastore

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

Unnotable argentinian teacher. I was unable to find any relevant sources about this person. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's not just a teacher though, she's a botanist, who discovered new plants, so we need to look for publications in which she discovered plants. I suspect there could be sources in another language too given that she's Argentinian. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't speak Spanish and can only access snippets of most of these sources, but there are a lot of results under her name on Google Books. These nine results [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] all seem like they might contain SIGCOV of her, in addition to the dozens of books that seem to cite her work as a botanist or contain trivial mentions. Based on what I could find I strongly suspect she is notable, but hopefully someone who speaks the language and can actually access the sources can have a proper look. MCE89 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playwin

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

Advert tone, does not meet notability guideline. Aqurs1 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill gambling company Lyndaship (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, and Sikkim. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Lee

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

I conducted a thorough search in both Chinese and English and found nothing mentioning the subject aside from a couple of interviews and reviews about his recent directorial debut An Abandoned Team. He also just made his debut with this 2024 film, and all of his previous film credits are as assistant director or script supervisor, which can hardly be considered major roles in film production. Fails both GNG and NCREATIVE. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Hong Kong. Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to An Abandoned Team: and undo the redirect when he has other films maybe. BUT technically this is a WP:DIRECTOR pass so not opposed to Keep. If R is chosen, please merge content that is judged suitable in a Production/Background section. It is not of little interest to know what films he was assist. dir. before that one. Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George (film)

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

Not to be confused with the 2024 film with the same name, this does not meet notability (WP:GNG or WP:NFILM). Due to the timing/editing here and at the related Hamid Castro and its AfD, seems like this could be promotional or undeclared COI. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, United States of America, and New York. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until release. And then see. -Mushy Yank. 19:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They'll Need a Crane

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites recordings of the song. There are some RSes that has non-trivial coverage of the song (A.V. Club and Stereogum), but there is not enough for a standalone article. This should redirect to Lincoln (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Torn (Lisa Ajax song)

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

Only relevant for Melodifestivalen 2019, and hasn't received sufficient coverage otherwise. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 21:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these criterias at WP:NMUSIC. 2, The recording has appeared on Sweden’s national music chart. And within the Top10. 5, The recording was performed in a medium that is notable, yes Melodifestivalen which broadcast on the national broadcaster SVT and had millions of viewers. Criteria 6 and 7 also applies. Clearly also within WP:GNG. Clearly notable and relevant.BabbaQ (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its performance at Melodifestivalen counts against it, as the song is only ever mentioned in independent sources that cover Melodifestivalen 2019, not the song in its own right as is required for notability. For the same reason, reaching the top 10 isn't a sufficient condition as that's only an indication that such sources exist, but they don't in this case. dummelaksen (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear here. Its notable. I have improved sourcing as well.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Of the 7 sources currently in article, [7] is documentation of the song having charted. [3], [4], [5], [6] seem to be about Melodifestivalen 2019 in general: they provide routine info about the competition, like who was performing, how many points each person got, etc. Torn is given a passing mention and/or included on list of songs, as are all other finalist performers.

Sources [1] and [2] are behind a paywall for me, so if anyone can speak to extent coverage of Torn in those articles that would be very helpful for the discussion. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC -> "Articles [about songs] unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" (from WP guidelines). I don't think it can be argued that a song being performed at Melodifestivalen makes it inherently notable, and I can find no signif coverage of Torn, nor any notable covers or independent analysis. I also see another contender for delete (Awful Liar) on Lisa Ajax's page, which has very similar problems to this article... InsomniaOpossum (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC is pretty clear. The song is notable. On several points as mentioned in my Keep rationale. The sources are clear on providing facts for the points on WP:NMUSIC. I stand by my Keep opinion as well. It was a Top 10 hit in Sweden, and performed in the semifinal, Second Chance round and the final of Melodifestivalen which is a major deal in Sweden.BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article have been improved since nom.BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demzy BaYe

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and all the sources cannot count toward WP: GNG. There are also elements of source farming here, in June 2024, this source was published in up to nine ([15] , [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] different newspapers with different titles but same contents word for word. Probably, the subject's notability is tied to being the originator of Baye Dance step, however, the dance step is also not notable. I would have redirect it to Dance with a Purpose Academy (DWP Academy) but it has no page on Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Dance, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In accepting the draft of this article, I considered it under WP:NMUSICOTHER, and yes, took the invention of dance steps to be notable, supported by national shows and performances, as documented. I don't think we're seeing source farming - rather, as happens with AP and similar, a base article was probably produced in one source location and circulated (it's not a press release) - the piece was found in respectable sources such as the Accra Times - so the only limitation is that that counts only once. Given performance, choreography, etc., I believe GNG is met, if not by much - I've seen a lot of less-well-attested articles (and yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid, but I weight what there is vs. the source base in Ghana). SeoR (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SeoR Thanks for the explanation but I took my time to go through all the sources and couldn't find GNG sources. The widely circulated source is highly promotional with flowery languages.hijacking the internet...He boasts a remarkable footprint... the multidimensional dance powerhouse whose talent has garnered widespread admiration and inspired an entire generation. .... Other sources are social media gossips like [23] [24] [25] and so on. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back, and I see your point. I do think the over-circulated article could be genuine "entertainment journalism" which often tends to the flowery, but I agree it's not ideal. And the "gossipy" materials are only good for background, not as primary references. I will try to search some of the main Ghana media sites for more. In the end, this was a "Random AfC" and I have no attachment, but I am aware that our coverage of areas such as arts in most non-EU, non-Anglosphere countries could use a boost, so I'd be loathe to lose an article with real potential. SeoR (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KDK Softwares

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

See previous deletions. Unable to meet WP:ORGCRITE. This is a promotional article as well. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, India, and Rajasthan. B-Factor (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi B-Factor,
I’ve made several updates to the KDK Softwares article to address the concerns you raised regarding notability and promotional content.
1. Notability: I’ve added independent sources, which provide coverage of the company’s history, partnerships, and industry role, which I believe satisfies the notability criteria for organizations (WP:ORGCRITE).
2. Neutrality: I’ve reworded sections that previously may have sounded promotional.
3. Citations: I’ve ensured that every single sentence in the article is now backed by a citation, and the references are from independent, reliable sources.
I believe these changes address the concerns and ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. Please review the updated version and let me know if there are any further issues that need to be addressed. ShaliniTaknet (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: correct title for article appears to be KDK Software, which was speedy deleted as spam in 2011. I can't find SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources to show how this meets WP:CORP, just passing mentions like this, interviews and paid placement like this, and social media. Sources cited are press releases and run-of-the-mill coverage verifying that the company exists, but now how it's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the input. I'm not sure why the page was created in 2011, since the notability of the company only increased only after 2017, hence the speedy deletion at the time is quite justified. For the latter points, I beg to differ since the sources cited are not just press releases or routine mentions. For example, The Hindu and Press Trust of India independently covered Intuit’s acquisition of KDK Softwares, which is a significant event in the industry. Empanelment by ICAI is another major highlight in the Indian taxation industry, especially after the launch of the new tax regime which posed significant complications and resistance among professionals. Coverage in BusinessLine and ThePrint also to some degree highlights not just the company's presence but its nationwide impact on tax professionals. S.Taknet (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should not be deleted. It is a notable company in the Indian market, especially in tax field. The article has citations from independent and well-known sources. Its acquisition by Intuit and affiliation with association like ICAI and AIFTP, also, supports its notability.Thecoolfactfinder (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Thecoolfactfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of refugia

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

Tagged as an essay for 10+ years. Effectively an orphan, listed as a see also in one article (it was also an easter egg link in another, I fixed that...). Categorized in broad category (Ice ages). WP:GNG of this is unclear. Perhaps parts of it could be merged to Refugium (population biology), which seems to be what refugia (otherwise, a disambig) means here. Why this exists as a separate article from that one is beyond me, except perhaps this is too poor to merge? But I am not familiar enough with the subject matter to be sure if this is useful to merge or not. But as a stand alone article it makes little sense to keep. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is a good, clear, cited overview (heck, even the lead is cited), followed by a perfectly sensible list of refugia as defined in population biology, with (gasp) every example actually cited (now that would transform Wikipedia's 100,000 list articles if it caught on as a meme habit...). There's nothing wrong with this list article at all; and merging it with the parent article would clutter it up and grossly unbalance it, almost doubling its length and dilute its argument which presents what a refugium is: the list correctly presents specific instances. So, I'd oppose any merge, it's a definite Keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Examples of ice age refugia. Refugium (population biology) is a very broad term, while this article is concerned with only one particular type. Other than that, I agree that this is a useful overview with great sourcing, and that it should be kept. And what in particular is "poor" about the writing? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duke City Shootout

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable movie-making contest. None of the sources cited in this article prove notability. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and New Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It got a huge amount of coverage in New Mexico, obviously. I tried to keep those sources to a minimum and looked for out of state sources. Offhand I'm finding a bit of a trickle of sourcing. The Hollywood Reporter source makes me think that there is possibly more out there, but not so much so that I'd argue for a keep based on that. I'm going to continue searching and see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think 2010 was the last year it was held - they weren't able to hold it in 2009 due to financial difficulties, and I can't really see any mention of the contest being held past 2010. That trickle of sourcing is still coming in, but I'm still on the fence as to whether or not there's really any notability. There's a ton of local coverage, but I know there are some who won't consider that to be usable, which is a fair concern. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:

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

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.

2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.

3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.

4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.

5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.

I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about the merits of those point

To be clear the criteria for inclusion is not about simply having reliable sources, nor if you know that it is TRUE, but rather if it meets specific criteria for being notable. See the linked policies in response to each of your points:

The two sources are effectively WP:PRIMARY sources as they recount who-said-what. I was unable to find any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage of this "volunteer role" such as the impact, result, or aftermath of her involvement (ie did it accomplish anything of note). Hutton's role isn't even covered in the Greenbelt scandal article.
Both Hudak and Harris are simply passing mentions of being in proximity of notable people and thus it would still fail WP:NINI. The exact timeline isn't relevant.
The reliable sources refer to her as a "longtime strategist"[26] and " one-time chief of staff" (e.g. appointed) [27] which is in the realm of politics does not mean she meets WP:POLITICIAN, and simply having those titles does not itself establish notability.
The other sig-coverage I assume you're referring to is "Tim Hudak’s daughter Miller the light of his life" -- which is an article centered around their daughter, and the only reason this article was covered was given in the title, because it was about the notable, Tim Hudak and the impact on his political aspirations their daughters illness created. WP:NINI
Per reliable sources from the article, her role on the board is a "part-time role." [28]. No indication she had any significant role, in anything having to do with any scandal of Metrolinx, and again, isn't even referenced in that article's page.
With regards to the National Post citation above, I think the title is supporting of a general lack of notability "Ontario Liberals target Conservative leader Hudak's wife over cancelled gas plant" (emphasis added) -- the article has chosen to use "leader's wife" instead of directly referencing Hutton by name in the title.

Based on the above, I suggest nothing has been provided to support WP:PERSON the person [...] should be "worthy of notice" [...], "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". She appears to have worked in the proximity of notable people/events/companies, but does not support that she meets any of the criteria of being independently notable. Also does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. TiggerJay (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The people who wrote the articles have no first hand knowledge of Deb Hutton's role in the Greenbelt scandal. Secondary sources including quotes from Primary sources, does not make them primary. The content not being the Greenbelt scandal article has no basis on Hutton's notability. It's a good idea for her to be mentioned by that article.

2. Sources make clear her role in appointed positions are significant. In 2003, the the Globe and Mail said that no government decisions were made without her approval: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/here-are-the-backroom-players/article18430066/.

3. There's more to the article than those titles. So this point is irrelevant.

4. The article gives significant coverage to Hutton's actions not just Hudak's.

5. Her not being referenced by the Metrolinx page does not support her not being notable. That article should probably mention her and other board members.

6. Just because the article title chooses to disrespectfully refer to her as Tim Hudak's wife, does not mean the article was not primarily about her.

A coverage gap in other articles does not support a finding of lack of notability. It supports a finding that the articles in question should be updated. Wikipedia is not a place were women's actions should be attributed to men, despite the fact that others may do that. Just because other sources give undue weight to Deb Hutton's relationship with her husband, does not mean we can do the same here, WP:NPOV. The national post article is about Deb Hutton and giving only passing mentions to her husband, not the other way around. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building, which has been been demonstrated time and time again. ANI ANI 2 BLPN talk talk 2 As such, I can only see further responding to you here will add heat without light, so I will defer to other editors to discuss the merits of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working on adding sources to the article, so for now this will be a comment. Thus far the best WP:SIGCOV I have found is a two page article on Hutton from the Toronto Star: ^[1]

References

^ Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Keep looking for SIGCOV, after a half hour I couldn't find anything. But keep looking! TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Courtesy pinging all editors from prior AfD who have been edited in the last 12 months per WP:APPNOTE : @MCB: @Yom: TiggerJay (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hutton's role as a political strategist in Canadian politics has spanned multiple administrations in Ontario. In addition to the source I cited above from the Toronto Star, the other two best sources are here: [29] and [30]. All three of these articles are WP:SIGCOV. In addition she has received additional minor mentions in multiple publications that are reliable and independent, further contributing to WP:BASIC DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit to correct signature - not sure how I added the nowiki brackets) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean appear to satisfy WP:BASIC]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss added sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ramam Raghavam

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

~~Not able to find two full length reviews in reliable sources and there are~~ not enough independent sources for GNG apart from routine coverage. Fails NFF/GNG. Draftify/ATDR - Dhanraj (actor). Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see enough coverage that GNG is met, especially since this is before release of the film. I'm willing to revisit in two to three months if the coverage completely dries up after release. —C.Fred (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you are seeing in the article is WP:CHURNALISM. Routine coverage of announcements, articles without bylines and interviews given as part of the film's promotion. If you actually thought that GNG was met here, then there would be no point in revisiting this article in two months. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify– Draftify this until the film is released and WP:NFILM criteria are met.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable cast, director and crew. Coverage about production. Release in 3 weeks...if really waiting until then is unbearable, redirect or draftifty but opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 01:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Maybe will meet WP:NFILM after the release with hopefully multiple reviews from reliable sources. Best to keep in draft and recommend the creator to refer to WP:ICTFSOURCES to add multiple reviews from reliable sources, if any are found, after the release, and then resubmit for AFC review. RangersRus (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Trading Cards

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

Relies too much on Primary sources Villkomoses (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Companies, American football, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Ice hockey, Tennis, Wrestling, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea 1618

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion ten years ago and kept on the grounds that the AFD nomination was too soon, and by a new user. Promises to find sources were not delivered on. The article cites a scan of a newspaper from 1910 but doesn't say what the newspaper was, and "History of Companies in the Ottoman Era" by Muhammad Al-Sharari, a book I can't find a single Google result for. In Arabic the only result is this Wikipedia article.

The sources on the talk page don't seem to check out either, even of the ones I could track down, they're general information about Dead Sea products but don't actually mention this specific company. Searching for any information about this company today all I find is that it seems to no longer be active and it was probably created in 2015, the same year as the Wikipedia article, and was never as big as the Wikipedia article claims. There's very few mentions of this company at all outside of Wikipedia mirrors, and none in reliable sources that I can find. While this article exists on the Arabic Wikipedia, it is an auto-translation of this English article done in October 2024, with no prior mention of the company there, which doesn't instill confidence that it's a real historic company.

I know that sources are going to be hard to find here but it's been ten years and there's nothing, with signs pointing to this article actually being a part of the launch of a 2015 company that didn't make it. In Wikipedia policy terms the lack of sourcing shown to exist mean it doesn't meet WP:CORP. Here2rewrite (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:V. Indistinguishable from a hoax. Jfire (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTA International Investment Holding

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. References cited are generally no more than press releases about investments. The article itself is just a WP:SOAPBOX. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Qatar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Ultramarathon Cup

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

Doesn't seem like a very notable event especially since it hasn't been held since 2019. Poorly sourced. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 U.S. Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competitions. I had attempted to redirect these articles to U.S. Figure Skating Championships, as has been done with literally hundreds of similar articles over the past month, but was reverted on the grounds that "This page have [sic] a reference source". As if that was the problem. Since the medalists were the only information supported by what sources I could access, I added those sources to the parent article. Recommend deletion or forced redirect back to U.S. Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: All pages have a references source, it's not non-notable. If you think it's not enough, you can add it more. The past year was so far and it need more time find the sources. Thanks. Stevencocoboy (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect: There's no need for an individual page for each year; the information can be better presented on a single page for the recurring event as a whole. Espatie (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I have already merged what little there was of value. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espatie: No need for an individual page for each year, what does it means? If you agree that, all pages should be redirect. Stevencocoboy (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what it says: there is no need for a separate article for every year of this event. One page for the event as a whole, with a combined table of results is sufficient Espatie (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at 1966, there seems to have been plenty of coverage of the event. E.g. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the 1966 article should be kept, I'm sure the AFD closer can separate it out from the others. I trust your judgment. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are sources for 1924 too: [36][37][38][39][40][41]. Also, pages 22 to 29 of the "Skating magazine" source listed in the article are about the 1924 event. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are sources for some of the topics bundled together. I recommend we focus on this particular topic and nominate the topics independently. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Per sources listed above for the earliest (1924) and latest (1966) event in this AfD, it is clear there are sources for these. Passes GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Commission of Agricultural Engineering

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

Blatantly promotional, unsourced article about an organization. It could be notable, but I see no reason for the article in its current to remain on the mainspace. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Organizations, Education, and Engineering. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and need more sources. HeMahon (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 01:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to International Commission of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (the organization's new name as of 2008), which now has verifiable information about a journal published by the organization. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

AfDs for this article:

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

This war is at best a clash with RS attesting it as a event that fails WP:MILNG with routine coverage only. I performed a search and went through sources used on the article and found the following:

van Schendel (in English) does not mention this clash. I added this source to the article because:
van Schendel (translated in 2017) mentions this clash in passing as happening in 2001
Ahmed (Jago News) explicitly discusses how the Naf War was exaggerated by Major General Fazlur Rahman on a talk show.
Tehran Times - article I was able to find through a google search, not the most reliable but is mostly routine coverage from 13 Januray 2001
BBC - article I restored from the 1st deletion, which also describes a short clash on 8 January 2001 and was absent from this article was re-created.
Mahbub Miah (alo.com.bd) describes the War as starting in January 1 2000 and has questionable neutrality and is the lone standout
Online Bangla News- source is peacocking and is the only source that uses January 8 2000

At the very least, the last two sources disagree with other sources I could find and with each other. If we discard those two as unreliable sources, there is not enough coverage for a standalone article. This article should be deleted or at least dratified until a narrative can be ascertained from reliable sources.

For context, this article was deleted before for the same reason as a soft delete due to minimal participation. Editor recreated the article from scratch instead of undeleting. Please do note that I attempted to improve the article as I review and found sources, which is the reason for the directly contradictory information currently present. Prior to my edits, the narrative followed the Mahbub Miah source but with the dates from the Online Bangla News source. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the removal of this article is not valid. Sufficient references have been provided here, which detail the incident comprehensively. Claiming that the sources are unreliable does not seem appropriate, as the diversity of sources still represents a significant event.
Furthermore, various documents have been incorporated into the article, making the content more credible and informative. An article enriched with references and documents should not be deleted solely due to discrepancies among sources. Instead, such articles should be further improved through discussion and coordination to ensure accuracy. Therefore, I oppose the proposal to delete this article and believe it should be retained. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New sources added:
Eshomoy article has the same issues as the Online Bangla News article- using several peacocking terms like "The infinite heroism of the Border Guard Bangladesh" and contradiction the Mahbub Miah article by saying that "It is worth mentioning here that the Bangladesh Army did not participate in this war."

Justice.gov article does not mention any clash that occured in 2000.

Imran Choudhury article is a blog, and is not a reliable source as it is a WP:USERGENERATED source
Thank you for improving the article with more sources, but we now have three sources supporting that there was anything more than a minor skirmish- two that agree on key details and one that doesn't. These three then contradict three other sources, including reliable sources from 2001.

The question here is in part, WP:SIGCOV for an event that goes beyond routine coverage in reliable sources. However, my nominiaton is mostly about verifiability (deletion reason 7). Attempts to find reliable sources to verify the claims in the Alo and Eshomoy articles have failed. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the sources and citations given in the Bengali Language Wikipedia which still states 600 killed and most of the citations were self-blog pages uploaded back in 2021-2022. For reference heres the bengali wikipedia নাফ যুদ্ধ. And self blog pages like [42], [43] . None of the official Bangladesh media like BBC Bangla or Prothom Alo states 600 Myanmar army were killed, instead it was just a clash. Also, it's not accurate to refer to it as a "war." It should be termed "Clashes in the Naf River". Next adding to that, I haven't been able to find any coverage of this war from Western media either. That said, I believe this article is unnecessary and I strongly request its deletion. Tuwintuwin (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the commenter’s name and account appear to be new. However, it is a sockpuppet and blocked, so how are they still commenting?Wikipedia: Sockpuppet investigations/Tuwintuwin/Archive

@Yue & @PhilKnight, please check if there is any connection. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tuwintuwin was unblocked following a successful unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The user who asked for its WP:REFUND did nothing significant so far. Cited with blogspots and no sign of authoritative sources are to be found. Garuda ^Talk! 21:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel

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

A case of evidence versus opinion. Theoretical physicist who moved into econophysics, h-factor WOS 25, GS 26, no major awards. Physics work is solid but does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 -- nobody has argued it does. Originators argues that economics work is notable, despite lack of cites. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, econophysics is not mainstream economics so is not well cited. Notability tag (not by nom) and PROD (by nom). Editors responded with arguments in talk pages of why he is notable in their opinion, and added WP:Opinion to text. Both notability tag & PROD were removed with the argument "passes WP:NPROF#C1 on cites". I believe we always require evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of @Xxanthippe, Gunnar.Kaestle, Sniffadog, Moriwen, Ulubatli Hasan, and Closed Limelike Curves: Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here are my arguments why his work is notable:

The Solow Growth Model is notable.
Also the Solow residual is notable, indicating that the model is not complete. (Figure 6.4).
Finding a solution by identifying a third production factor energy as the missing link is notable as well.

Gunnar (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"After a detailed discussion of the scientific elements of energy and entropy, Kümmel comes to his main concern, the improvement of economic theory, and introduces energy as a new variable in economics on the basis of scientific results. The result is a model in which the economic production function depends on the factors capital, labor, energy and creativity. Kümmel tests the model using economic data from Germany, the USA and Japan. He concludes his book with the hope for a society that builds its future on reason and general ethical values. “The Second Law of Economics” is very convincing and it is to be hoped that it will help to bridge the deep rifts between the natural and social sciences." Book Review for The Second Law of Economics [44] Gunnar (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who works on a notable model is notable themselves. Writing one book, even one notable book, is not enough to meet our notability standards for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.

At least he has priority in finding a pretty good solution to the known problem. If this was a patent, the early bird would be notable. Gunnar (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel is one of the first scientists who introduced energy as factor of production analytically. Kümmel derived the LINEX production function that depends linearly on energy and exponentially on the ratios of capital, labor, and energy. The LINEX function is the first production function that explicitly models energy’s economic role of activating the capital stock. More specifically, it models the role of energy in increasing automation and in capacity utilization of industrial production. Kümmel derived the LINEX function in 1982, triggering a stream of research on energy as factor or production. Source of first publication: Kümmel, Reiner (1982). "The impact of energy on industrial growth". Energy. 7 (2). Elsevier: 189–203. doi:10.1016/0360-5442(82)90044-5. Retrieved 2025-01-20. Gunnar (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least 10 publications on GS with > 100 cites. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. All these papers are in ecological economics which is a high citation field, please see this link Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xxanthippe, to expand on my citation conmment, in standard solid-state physics 10 papers cited more than 100 times is about what is expected for a good assistant professor coming up for tenure at a strong R1 university. This is different from, for instance, mathematics where citations are far lower, or HEP where they are far higher. A few papers with > 1000 cites is notable. His area of ecological economics is highly cited, from what I can see higher than solid-state physics. If we said that all Profs with > 10 papers cited > 100 times were notable, then almost every associate professor or higher at an R1 university in chemistry, materials science, physics, economics and a few more would pass R1. As has been discussed previously quite a few times at WT:NPROF, the concensus is that citations have to be considered in context for the field, not as absolute numbers.Ldm1954 (talk) 09:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work."

"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

"Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."

These caveats may be there to prevent identifying only cargo-cult science as notable. Thus, my suggestion is to have a closer look on the improved theory of economic growth with energy as third production factor. It is a tiny, focused subject but without doubt notable. "Growth theory, like much else in macroeconomics, was a product of the depression of the 1930s and of the war that finally ended it." Similarly, Kümmel's work started with the observations during the oil crises in the 70s. Gunnar (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hall, Charles; Lindenberger, Dietmar; Kümmel, Reiner; Kroeger, Timm; Eichhorn, Wolfgang (2001-08-01). "The Need to Reintegrate the Natural Sciences with Economics" (PDF). BioScience. 51 (8). Oxford University Press: 663–673. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0663:TNTRTN]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2025-01-21. I like this paper very much, not because of the mathematical explanation in the 2nd half, but because of the simple English and the Figures in the first half. Especially fig. 1a shows a basic model in economics: Goods and services flow in one direction (and are paid by households), while Land, Labor and Capital flow in the other direction (and are paid by firms). "This view represents, essentially, a perpetual motion machine" as all the goods and services (including capital borrowing and land lending) are circulated after processed or consumed and paid in a constantly spinning wheel. Therefore, figure 2 shows a more accurate model of how economies work. Everything is driven by an energy flow, while its quality is degraded (entropy is increasing). This is not my personal opinion only, but at least his 4 co-authors obviously agree to this interpretation: It is irresponsible to rely in our decision making on economic models, that contradict our reality. Reiner Kümmel has created a sound mathematical foundation by properly integrating energy into the macroeconomic theory. Gunnar (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to link to the article's talk page Talk:Reiner Kümmel#Notability of Academics as well as to the matching discussion at the Economics project Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#Notability of Reiner Kümmel. Gunnar (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Secco

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability threshold. I found a 1982 New York Times article quoting him as an 'English and philosophy instructor', and what looks like an interview for the Chicago Tribune in 1987 about a National Junior College Athletic Association tournament, which doesn't seem to count as WP:SIGCOV of him as an individual. Other than that mainly sources affiliated with DePaul University. C 679 12:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Illinois. C 679 12:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 12:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DePaul Blue Demons men's soccer where he is mentioned and which appears to be the only claim to fame.

Tony Alanis

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet GNG and no longer meets NMMA Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Nswix (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Databases and fight results don't show that WP:GNG is met. Although he met an old notability criteria for MMA fighters, with a 5-3 record he never came close to meeting the existing standard of being world top 10. Fails to meet any current WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:55, 20 January 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 12:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ji (surname 蓟)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article went through AfD a few months ago, which ended in no consensus. Every single source brought up at the nomination page was a name dictionary that briefly mentions some mythical legend about how a descendant of the Yellow Emperor was enfeoffed by King Wu of Zhou in some town named Ji and then the town was conquered by some neighboring state and then the residents took up this up as their surname. None of them provide any evidence of the notability of this name or family. The sources currently in the article are two dictionaries that only mention the name and some brief explanation of the legend. Unless more sources can be found outside of "some people in a town 1,000 years ago adopted the town name as their surname and then they went to live in some other places" then this article runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT and WP:NNAME and is best deleted. It was also proposed that it could be redirect to Ji (surname) in the old AfD but I don't think this would really benefit readers as that page is just a listing of links to articles about different surnames transliterated as "Ji". Sorry for the very long nomination statement. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Wikipedia articles about people with the name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Analysis of the sources
After translating from Chinese to English through Google Translate, Zhu 2009 provides 352 words of coverage about the subject, Xu & Hou 2017 provides 205 words of coverage about the subject, and Beijing Evening News 2009 provides about 500 words of coverage about the subject.
My view is there is sufficient depth in these sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources discuss the origin of the surname 蓟, etymological analysis about the different components in the the character's formation, the places where the surname is most common, the fact that it is not among the 400 most common surnames, how the Eastern Han scholar Ji Zixun [zh] and the Eastern Han military commander Ji Liao (Chinese: 蓟辽) have the surname 蓟, and how King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Yellow Emperor the title of Marquis of Ji following which they took Ji as their family surname. There is enough information that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline).
This depth of coverage about the surname means that WP:NOTDICT is not violated. The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences notes: "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." The sources provide enough information to write an article that has "encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name".
Sources
1. Zhu, Tianmin 朱天民 (2009). 姓氏的尊嚴：從姓氏起源察知神對人無盡的愛 [The Dignity of Surnames: Discover God's Endless Love for People from the Origin of Surnames] (in Chinese). Taipei: 歸主出版社. pp. 262–263. ISBN 978-986-6769-160. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "我所姓的這「薊」,很少人能正確的認識,當然是因為這姓氏太少;可是,究其歷史卻是相當久遠。約等於士師後的撒母耳時代,周武王封黃帝裔孫於「薊」,即今日的北京城西的大部分地區,後代就以「薊」為姓而留存。"
  From Google Translate: "Very few people can correctly recognize my surname "Ji", of course because there are so few people with this surname; but Yes, its history is quite long. Around the time of Samuel after the Judges, King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty named the descendants of the Yellow Emperor "Ji", which is most of the area west of Beijing today. The descendants continued to use "Ji" as their surname."
  The book notes: "然若查考古人為何以圖二的「草」,與圖三的「魚」和圖四象形的「刀」來組成,而稱開紫色小花之菊科花草的名字。乍看之下,它們似乎是毫不相干;當然,依造字的原則,可叫我們知道它是一種草的名字。又因它的葉子為魚翅狀,所以就如此組合。可是,古人又把它的右旁組以圖四的「刀」, 真會使這魚和草都不敢面對。"
  From Google Translate: "However, if we look into why the archaeologists combined the "grass" in Figure 2 with the "fish" in Figure 3 and the pictographic "knife" in Figure 4 to name the flowers and plants of the Compositae family with small purple flowers. At first glance, they seem to have nothing to do with each other; of course, according to the principles of word creation, we know that it is the name of a kind of grass. And because its leaves are shark fin-shaped, they are combined like this. However, the ancients also placed the "knife" in Figure 4 on the right side of it, which really made the fish and grass afraid to face it."
2. Xu, Tiesheng 徐铁生; Hou, Xiaoru 侯笑如, eds. (2017). "263蓟　Jì". 《百家姓》新解（精） [A New Interpretation of "Hundred Family Surnames" (Excerpt)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 978-7-101-12533-7. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes:
  
  姓不在中国400个常见姓之列。分布于北京市，河北石家庄、正定、滦南、永年，山西太原、大同（市）、朔州、阳泉、长治（市）、介休、万荣、孝义、汾阳、文水、绛县，江苏南京、常州、无锡、兴化，浙江宁波、海盐，安徽宿松，福建柘荣、三明，山东高密、烟台，河南中牟、宁陵、义马，湖北武汉、钟祥、英山、荆州、石首、公安，湖南长沙（市、县）、岳阳（市）、华容、益阳、攸县、衡阳（市），贵州正安，陕西西安、合阳，甘肃酒泉等地。望出内黄县。
  蓟姓有内黄堂、宗新堂等堂号。
  相传蓟姓出内黄帝轩辕氏之后，蓟姓家族因以“宗轩”为家族堂号。
  蓟氏，祁姓。以国为氏。蓟国，在今北京城西南隅。周武王时始封，后灭于燕。
  蓟姓历史人物有：蓟辽，东汉建安中驸马都尉，齐人。
  From Google Translate:
  The surname is not among the 400 common surnames in China. It is distributed in Beijing, Shijiazhuang, Zhengding, Luannan, Yongnian in Hebei, Taiyuan, Datong (city), Shuozhou, Yangquan, Changzhi (city), Jiexiu, Wanrong, Xiaoyi, Fenyang, Wenshui, Jiangxian in Shanxi, Nanjing, Changzhou, Wuxi, Xinghua in Jiangsu, Ningbo, Haiyan in Zhejiang, Susong in Anhui, Zherong, Sanming in Fujian, Gaomi, Yantai in Shandong, Zhongmou, Ningling, Yima in Henan, Wuhan, Zhongxiang, Yingshan, Jingzhou, Shishou, Gong'an in Hubei, Changsha (city, county), Yueyang (city), Huarong, Yiyang, Youxian, Hengyang (city) in Hunan, Zheng'an in Guizhou, Xi'an, Heyang in Shaanxi, Jiuquan in Gansu, etc. The ancestors came from Neihuang County.
  The Ji surname has hall names such as Neihuang Hall and Zongxin Hall.
  According to legend, the Ji surname came from the descendants of Emperor Huangdi Xuanyuan, so the Ji surname family used "Zongxuan" as the family hall name.
  Ji clan, Qi surname. The surname is taken from the country. Ji State was located in the southwest corner of Beijing. It was first established during the reign of King Wu of Zhou and was later destroyed by Yan.
  Historical figures with the surname Ji include: Ji Liao, a military commander of the imperial son-in-law during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty, from Qi.
3. "以蓟为姓在童话里飞扬" [With Ji as the surname, soaring in the fairy tale]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). 2022-04-06. Archived from the original on 2024-09-09. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "也由于被人喜爱，才有了蓟国，并带来了蓟姓。据《姓氏考略》记载，大约在殷商时期，古代范阳（约今北京城西南一带）因为漫山遍野长着独具气质和才情的蓟，便自然形成一个小国，史称蓟国。蓟国是今北京最早形成的国家之一。... 蓟在中国古代姓氏中的位置也比较理想，开创了神话一般的存在。其中心人物是东汉建安年间名士蓟子训。正史、野史、方志类古籍对他均有记载。"
  From Google Translate: "Because of its popularity, the Ji State was established, and the Ji surname was brought to the country. According to the "Surname Research", around the Shang Dynasty, the ancient Fanyang (approximately the southwest of Beijing today) naturally formed a small country, known as the Ji State, because the mountains and plains were full of Ji with unique temperament and talent. The Ji State was one of the earliest countries formed in Beijing today. ... Ji also has an ideal position in ancient Chinese surnames, creating a mythical existence. The central figure is Ji Zixun, a famous scholar during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty. He is recorded in official history, unofficial history, and local chronicles."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "蓟姓起源,名人及家谱" [Origin of the Ji surname, celebrities and family tree]. Shangdu.com [zh] (in Chinese). 2008-07-17. Archived from the original on 2014-05-08. Retrieved 2024-09-09.
    The article notes: "据《姓氏考略》记载：周武王封黄帝的后裔于蓟（今北京），其子孙便以国名为姓。"
    From Google Translate: "According to the "Surname Research", King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huangdi the title of Ji (now Beijing), and their descendants took the name of the country as their surname."
  2. Wang, Kezhong 王克忠 (2011). 国学精粹 [The Essence of Chinese Studies] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Textile Press [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5064-7230-2. Retrieved 2024-09-09.
    The book notes: "【蓟姓】西周时,周武王封黄帝的后代在蓟,其就以蓟为自己家族的姓氏。"
    From Google Translate: "[Ji surname] During the Western Zhou Dynasty, King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huang the title of Marquis of Ji, and they took Ji as their family surname."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ji (surname 蓟) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ji (surname 蓟) participants: Yinweiaiqing (talk · contribs), Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), CFA (talk · contribs), AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk · contribs), Traumnovelle (talk · contribs), and OwenX (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to readers, these are the same sources I addressed in the nom statement. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Cunard, which are enough to meet GNG. I've also edited the article to add an offline source, which has about a paragraph of information about the surname. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's more evaluation of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on the sources provided above. This isn't the longest article ever, but the GNG has pretty clearly been met. Whether the traditional origin story is true or not, or important or not, does not matter. The GNG has been met, the article should be kept. Toadspike [Talk] 13:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per description provided by Cunard, the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvymaro (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 00:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Coppen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Albums and songs, and Indonesia. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Does not show enough Notability to be included in mainspace. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sent it to draftspace days back but I've seen alot of improvement source-wise and contentwise, passes WP:GNG at it's current state but still doubtful on WP:NACTOR. ANU^writes 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Romeo & Juminten and Best Friends Forever. Also appears to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs cleanup and expansion (the Indonesian corresponding article can be of use) but she seems to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions that received coverage (not all have a page on this Wikipedia (yet)) -Mushy Yank. 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments here are vague references to policy, lacking substantial arguments. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abrams (criminal)

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2017. Not clear the subject meet WP:GNG or is compliant with WP:CRIMINAL.4meter4 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. No inline citations whatsoever. Spideog (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (?) I never know how to write these mobster articles, but he is described as a significant mobster in several books on the topic, including topical crime encyclopedias. [45] [46] [47]. I will add sources later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article was in those two books. Could probably be expanded further he's covered a decent amount but it at least verifies now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet criteria for WP:CRIME. He is not internationally renowned, and there is no separate coverage except for citations in other compendiums (encyclopedias), as detailed in paragraph 3 of notability guideline. Silvymaro (talk) 12:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civionics

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

Invented discipline which is very uncommon and does not pass any notability tests. Most GS hits are for a company with this name, very little secondary sourcing. It was AfD'd in 2008 and retained them based upon the argument that it was a "nascent discipline" and had a few sources. 16 years later it can no longer be considered nascent, it is a failed neologism. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This minor (attempted?) neologism doesn't appear to have taken significant hold of the public imagination. At best, it might merit inclusion as a minor, restricted jargon in Wiktionary? But I'm not even convinced of that. Spideog (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like a diamond for a retirement fund. I really have to ask Spideog if he did searches of the term on Google Books and Google Scholar, as those settle the case for keeping an article on this in stone. Google Scholar provides you no shortage of pieces entirely on the discipline (with its name in the headlines of these many articles), and several books, all WP:ACADEMIC from as early as 2004 all the way to 2022 have dedicated at least a page talking about this concept in detail. Some examples: A 2007 book I found dedicated an entire section about a case study of civionics. A CRC Press book from 2020 covered the usage of a civionics system on a bridge in Winnipeg, so clearly this is being incorporated into the real world. This definitely indicates a frequently-encountered subject in the world of engineering and technology. Even a normal Google search should've started giving you this coverage by the third page. Granted, all of the coverage is in academic journals, but since Wikipedia holds a crown to those above any others, and the sources for this topic are plentiful, that's really not a point against it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh merge to civil engineering. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at books, too, and what HumanxAnthro has missed that the book sources, including the ones that xe hyperlinked, are all by Aftab Mufti, citing xyrself as the coiner of this idea. For example, the very first book that comes up for me is a 2005 paper in some conference proceedings authored by Mufti that has the inline citation from Mufti to Mufti: "CIVIONICS (Mufti, 2003) is a new term coined from the integration of Civil-Electronics […]". The "third page" Google Web results (an unsafe reference as Google results vary from editor to editor) are presumably to the Springer and Sage Publications journal articles also all written by Aftab Mufti. This concept has no evidence, even from the sources cited here, that in over 20 years it has escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by other people to the extent that they have documented it. An idiosyncratic academic concept that does not take hold beyond its creator is exactly what our no original research policy addresses. Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe you looked at my examples carefully. The CRC Press book was not written by Mufti at all, and yet it still dedicated an entire section about its use on a real-world bridge in Canada, which I'm pretty sure Mufti was not involved in. The 2007 book I linked was also not by Mufti. It heavily discussed the concept without his help, only citing a paper of his once, which doesn't mean it was by him. I'll grant you a lot of the Google Scholar sources credited Mufti as an author, but even then, many of those Mufti sources had a different bunch of other authors, and I mean a lot of different authors. This is not factoring in the Civionics articles not written by him I found [48] [49] [50] [dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10763719] [51] [52] [53][54] [55] [56] and this that recommends the familiarity of it. A University curriculum as late as 2023 taught an introduction to Civionics, no mention of Mufti at all in there and no credit to him. Acknowledged here in a book with no involvement from Mufti. This cites Civionics as a potential real-world necessity. This all indicates acknowledgement and coverage of the concept beyond Mufti. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Iqubal

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

Not a notable entrepreneur. Possible WP:BLP1E (Participation in Shark Tank India). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from what I understand he's joined Shark Tank as one of the Sharks, which isn't One Event - and he appeared in a Forbes 30/30 list years before then - so the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. I would suggest that this individual is more wikinotable than the company he founded. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. The coverage is only about being appointed as Shark Tank judge and nothing of that announcement present him as a notable entrepreneur. In fact, all sources related to the Shark Tank have same format starting from the headline or title of those pieces through the body of those articles. The other few sources are just passing mention. The Forbes article is not significant enough to demonstrate his notability. Mekomo (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not notable, We came to know about him, only through sharktank. - Herodyswaroop (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that doesn't sound like a reason someone wouldn't be notable -- D'n'B-📞 -- 16:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Azhar Iqubal satisfies WP:GNG and WP:SUSTAINED due to multiple independent, reliable sources providing significant coverage of his career and achievements beyond a single event. His inclusion in the Forbes 30 Under 30 list demonstrates recognition of his entrepreneurial impact, which is a notable accomplishment. Additionally, his role as a Shark Tank India judge indicates continued influence in the business and entrepreneurial domain. This sustained notability is further supported by reliable sources discussing his contributions to his industry and his company. His public profile and achievements make him a notable figure deserving of a Wikipedia article.--Abhey City (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu al-Qusur

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

Does not look like it is notable, no content other than it's location and population. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Location and population meets WP:NPLACE. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly populated place, appears to be a census settlement which passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete census tracts are not legally recognised places and I can find no mention of this place in English that isn't circular to Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [57][58] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense, I think a withdrawal of nomination is in order then. @Garudam Noorullah (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a better approach. Garuda ^Talk! 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I took a look at the sources for this battle. There are no significant sources for it and it does not seem notable enough to have been covered properly outside of Wikipedia. Of the sources given, only one really covers the "battle", but does not give it a name. The article goes beyond those sources and strays into original or at least uncited research. Given the lack of evidence the battle has received significant attention from independent sources, my view is it is not notable enough for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. FrightenedPenguin (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)— FrightenedPenguin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Take a quick look at this comment. Garuda ^Talk! 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, you stated similar to every other cricket [league] — which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus on aggregate runs is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [66] [67] [68] [69]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [70]), as well as in post-season articles like [71] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?'

The first source is titled IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final.

The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase: Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later: The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack, before noting the Emerging Player of the Season, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers: Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.

Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad in Hinduism

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

POV fork of Bhavishya Purana, this topic fails WP:GNG and relies mostly on unreliable sources to push a fringe view point. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's Hindu–Islamic relations. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well known also has been mentioned in pages like Bhavishya Purana and Ved Prakash Upadhyay but this page is detail of how it's mentioned in the religious book of Hinduism and it's not something to "push a fringe view point" as similar pages exist like Jewish views on Muhammad or Muhammad and the Bible or Muhammad in the Bahá'í Faith and chosing the word "Hinduism" in title is because none of the Jewish or Christian sources or book mentions Muhammad but the Hindu major scriptures mentions him by name and his followers as same "musalmaan" as we know today. Creation of a distinct page is because his is mentioned by Hindu scholars and Islamic scholars as Kalki avatar too. So it was needed creation of a page detailing those in one page. Therealbey (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On "similar pages exist", see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Which are the the 3 best sources in this article per WP:GNG? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT says "convincing argument based solely on whether similar content exists on another page" and I didn't do that I cited sources and scholars like Ved Prakash Upadhyay, Zakir Naik, Abdul Haq Vidyarthi have talked about this. if you want I can cite more sources. Therealbey (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know which are the 3 best sources in this article per WP:GNG? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2,3,7,9 Therealbey (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

2 appears to be [72], seems self-published:[73]
3 according to isbn is this one [74], is that correct?
7 [75] is afaict Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (whoever that is) writing about his own ideas, he is a proponent of the "Muhammed in old Hindu-text" idea, so he is not independent of the subject. That doesn't make him useless as a source, but it doesn't help with WP:N.
9 [76] Can't access, no opinion atm.

Seems Ved Prakash Upadhyay is somewhat related to this subject. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2. I didn't get what you meant by this.

3. Mistake on isbn. I have updated.

7. Ravi Shankar is a prominent Hindu leader and guru and his works has notability.

9. Nothing to say it's your own thing.

If you want I can cite more sources to the page. Therealbey (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 is this book [77], correct?
So 3 is this book? [78][79][80]
7 But not independence in this context, per WP:GNG.
9 Yep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2 I think so cause it is applicable in Kalki Avatar

3. Yes!

7. I think it's not but can be used as religious leader views sense.

Should I add more? Therealbey (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see the point being made by Therealbey, however, as mentioned on Bhavishya Purana page lead section "The veracity and authenticity of much of the Bhavishya Purana has been questioned by modern scholars and historians, and the text is considered an example of "constant revisions and living nature" of Puranic genre of Hindu literature.", it doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG as mentioned in nom. Also, I see that some sources currently used are blog or newspaper...Also, Bhoja#Legends has some historical context? Asteramellus (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, several blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether it's authentic or not according to some of scholars the book is been followed by Hindu doctrine for centuries and has significance in Hinduism. And other than blog post I cited the books too. Therealbey (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the page of Bhavishya purana. It tells a different and more clear story regarding muhammad in Hinduism. The censored view you are pushing here is not only fringe but very deceptive. Its inaccurate too. Also based on unreliable sources. Delete! delete! delete! 2409:40C1:4C:76D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if so then prove how and anyone is free to improve the article with citing sources. If you think it's biased you can add also I am keep improving it. Therealbey (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's no question but that the title of this article is superior to the book from which it's allegedly a POV fork: we clearly should have an article at this title. Having said that, I have little to no understanding of the topic, so I'm not sure what should be in such an article. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have mentioned previously that what is the reason of choosing this title it is because Bhavishya Purana, veds are major books of Hinduism those are the foundation of hinduism when something mentioned there and scholars has also verified that then it becames a thing in Hinduism. similar page exists for Muhammad in Christianity or Judaism but doesn't uses the name of the religion because none of those religions holy books mentions Muhammad by name. But religion like Baha'i Faith mentions him as a prophet so you can see Muhammad in the Baháʼí Faith mentions the nane of religion. This was a example. it's simply because he is mentioned in Hinduism scriptures. Therealbey (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mallorca

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. The article only cites one news source. Apart from that, the only sources I can find are from the DEA's own website. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Police. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not looking everywhere that you can. The World Wide Web is not the whole world. There's a paragraph on this that is more detailed than this article, that can be used to expand it, at USDEA 2008, p. 180 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFUSDEA2008 (help); and also coverage in the entry at Kleiman & Hawdon 2011, p. 764 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFKleimanHawdon2011 (help). At worst this is a merger to some larger article about USDEA anti-money-laundering operations, as at least one other source lumps it in with the likes of Money Trail Initiative, Operation Cali Exchange, and Operation Plata Sucia, showing that being part of a larger subject is how the world knows it. Uncle G (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Kleiman, Mark A. R.; Hawdon, James E., eds. (2011). "Tandy, Karen". Encyclopedia of Drug Policy. Vol. 1. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781412976961.n336. ISBN 9781412976954.
- United States Drug Enforcement Administration (2008). Drug Enforcement Administration: A Tradition of Excellence, 1973-2008. United States Drug Enforcement Administration.
Delete: Fails WP:NEVENT since it lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage. It made the rounds as part of the regular news cycle in June [81], and there's a tiny paragraph a few months earlier [82]. but not much else. If the only significant coverage afterwards is a paragraph in the USDEA's own publication, that's not enough for NEVENT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Colombia and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De-Trumpification

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

Super POVy and synthy. Lumps together a bunch of disparate ideas, and is basically just an excuse to compare Trump to the Nazis. Of the six sources cited, five fail as WP:NEWSOPED Golikom (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-established term, has had a Wiktionary entry for nearly a decade as well. --Tataral (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term itself fails WP:NOTDICT, and the underlying concept, i.e. the proposed process of addressing, mitigating and dismantling the political, social, and cultural influences associated with Trumpism, is vague and mostly hypothetical. As explained by the nominator, various sources use "de-Trumpification" to refer to different ideas, such as rolling back Trump's policies, investigating Trump and his associates, and removing Trumpism from society and the government. The broadest definition of "de-Trumpification" is only used in thinkpieces, which we should not base an article on as they are not reliable sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The article in its present state is just a collection of quotes that use the term, though it seems there's likely more to be written about the concept. – MW_(t•c) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be acceptable. The article was recently created and is still being developed. --Tataral (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Sloat

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and American football. Joeykai (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mothe Srilatha Reddy

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

Sources aren’t SIGCOV, hence failing GNG. Mayors aren’t inherently notable under NPOL, hence failing NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom., no sig cov. and not a mayor is inherently notable TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of governor general of Belize

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

This page includes a list of non-notable spouses, who do not have their own pages, and is already included in their notable spouses page. Delete as per WP:NINI. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TiggerJay (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is in contrast to other pages such as Spouse of the governor-general of Australia and Spouse of the prime minister of Canada wherein the spouses themselves are notable, and the page is reliably sourced as such. TiggerJay (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list does not meet the general notability guidelines. I can't find sources with significant coverage of any spouses of governors-general, and I have yet to find any independent reliable source discussing this position as a group (which would be required by the stand-alone list notability guideline). I don't think this needs to be merged to Governor-General of Belize because none of the individuals are notable. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 07:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst it has clear analogies to the spouses of other heads of state, the difference here is one of documentation. There's just no mention of this position in any of the sources on the politics and constitution of Belize that I have looked at so far, not even looking at older sources that might say "wife" or sources that might cover (for example) Norma Young by name. This does not appear to be a subject documented at all outwith that 1 WWW site. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Chillayah

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

Looking at the given sources:

[83] is not SIGCOV and only links him as a contact, also not independent as it's a partnership with his association
[84] and [85] do not mention him at all
[86] is IMDB
[87] is his association's official website (primary)
[88] only lists his association in a bullet list of many others, no SIGCOV
[89] is another of his websites
[90] is an interview he gave to a council his association joined, neither independent nor secondary
[91] is another SIGCOV-free bullet list
[92] doesn't mention him, and, looking at the context of how it was used, wouldn't have been independent either way
[93] is his speaker profile at an event, not independent
[94] is literally an advertisement
[95] is the same as the first source, but this time with the title of a different paragraph
[96] is yet another list with no content beyond names
[97] and [98] are open letters he helped writing, very primary
[99] gives me an error 404, but appears to be another open letter

All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Malaysia, and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this link should work (grabbed from archive). You're right that it's just another open letter. Procyon117 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage - there's virtually nothing about him, rather than open letters to which he's signed. The page is also so poorly written as to be nonsensical. Was this drafted by generative AI or Google translate? Bearian (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you for source analysis and after evaluating the sources myself, page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Gemayel

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

Declined prod. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did find being a Sheikh and an Olympian a bit unusual, which was why I thought it might be good to have a discussion on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FieldComm Group

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

Non-notable company. Lack of reliable sources and secondary/tertiary sources. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find sources that would establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gleam (programming language)

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

Non-notable programming language, lack of SIGCOV/reliable sources, and reads like a documentation. In addition, there is a lack of secondary sources. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Krill article and the De Simone article that are already cited establish notability. Both provide in-depth coverage and are reliable. The author of the former has been a journalist for three decades and the latter has been a software engineer for more than two. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources provided are sufficient for the extent of the article, see reasons given above. Korn (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Ray

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

Does not pass GNG. The sources currently listed in the article is racing reference which is a database of racing results and two from two from ARCA the series he runs but are but is only an entry list and results. I can only find one other source which is a racing preview for the whole series and does not provide SIGCOV. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley

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

Coverage not WP:SUSTAINED, coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and exemplifies WP:TDS (Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article). Not independently notable and could serve as a footnote or two lines on any given Donald Trump article. Literally, the content is "the US government put up a portrait of a general, and then right after Trump took office, it was removed". WP:NOTNEWS. Barnt Toust 02:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS... - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-publicized artwork and political incident with significant media coverage and public interest. --Tataral (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- So maybe your topic is relevant, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own separate article. It may well be best served as a short paragraph in an existing article – Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Barnt Toust 03:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Strong Delete per ROUTINE, NOTNEWS, TDS – the page creator needs a thorough lesson in these tenets. I mean this is just ridiculous 🙄 YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a trout, master Yoda? I'll invite the next editor who sees fit to, to deliver to Tataral—the page creator—a good WHACK. Barnt Toust 03:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plain old strong delete, then. YodaYogaYogurt154 (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poorly thought-out article creation. The removal of a portrait, as politically-overtoned as it may be, does not grant notability to the portrait. Mention this in "Second Presidency of Donald Trump" or whatever the article name about that is. Not worthy of a standalone. Zaathras (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mark Milley#Second Trump administration where this is already covered sufficiently. This article unnecessarily stretches two sentences' worth of content into five paragraphs. As a second choice, just delete per nom with a strong dose of WP:TDS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per BT. 2600:2B00:9639:F100:89DA:72DA:5ADF:68C8 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect info to Mark Milley as per Metropolitan90... only notable for how mark milley is being treated during second trump admin. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Military, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's just a portrait. That's it. It's just a portrait... Norbillian (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom RamHez (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This can easily be covered in Milley's own article. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golikom (talk • contribs) 2025-01-26T07:31:30 (UTC)

Lakeside Holding

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All news articles about this company are routine announcements and press releases. Badbluebus (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, China, South Korea, United States of America, and Illinois. Badbluebus (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a normal routine for all companies because their updates called their news Beverlyhaley (talk) 14:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the company is registed in Nasdaq US stock exchange and notability reference url available in page, I think the deletion is not the solution of page improvment, kindly allowd company to improve their page with stability

secondly the {{Promotional}} and {{COI}} tags are removed by mistake due to i am not very professional in wikipedia editing and i am creating this page for my own company Beverlyhaley (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to discuss here one most important issue and that is paid services of wikipedia

Because you are not allow page owners to create their pages with your guide lines. Then they hire and pay for someone to the same work. I think for the solution of this issue you are requested to allow owners to improve their own pages without deletion Beverlyhaley (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have the mistaken idea that the article in question is "your page" or "the company's page". That is not correct (although it is a common error). The page is Wikipedia's article about the company. Neither you nor the company is the "page owner"; Wikipedia is the page owner. If the company does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, then there is no reason to have an article about it, regardless of what the company might like. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the correction of my words Beverlyhaley (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This message is only for Administrator (Bearcat) (R'n'B) (GoingBatty) I also pointing out one thing that I notice during in creating my this page, Some accounts Editors (extended confirmed) and some just new accounts do this activity and mark every page for deletion and after that contact with page owners for page creation services. you are requested please check the same at your end, thanks Beverlyhaley (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and also possible one person handle all these accounts for this type activity (Bearcat) (R'n'B) (GoingBatty) Beverlyhaley (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beverlyhaley: I'm not an administrator. If you want to report an issue to administrators, feel free to post at WP:ANI. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your guidance Beverlyhaley (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm extremely confused by why I was pinged above, as I've never had anything to do with this page, but I'm even more confused by what the editor is even trying to ask me for.
That said, the issue is that notability, for the purposes of qualifying for a Wikipedia article, is not established by the company's own self-published press releases about itself — it's established by media coverage about the company in sources independent of itself, such as newspapers, magazines or books. We're an encyclopedia, not a free advertising or public relations platform. We're not looking for simple evidence that the company exists — we're looking for evidence that the company has been the subject of third-party coverage and analysis in reliable sources, to establish that its corporate activities have been externally validated as newsworthy or historically significant by sources that didn't have a vested interest in promoting it. For example, Lenovo doesn't have an article because its own press releases verify that it exists, Lenovo has an article because its activities and operations have been written about by the media as news.
But this is referenced to press releases and directory entries, not GNG-worthy coverage or analysis about the company. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see WP:NCOMPANY being met. E_F⁵ 18:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator blocked for UPE. Lavalizard101 (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia is not the place for a company to promote itself. Acceptable articles about companies are overwhelmingly written by volunteer editors, not paid editors. Cullen328 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa

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

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOL. Simply being a flag bearer of a political party in an election does not inherently establish notability. I proposed a deletion few days ago, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ghana. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody I was the one who created the article and I did not remove the tag for deletion. Check your facts right before making an accusation. daSupremo

18:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaSupremo, I'm really sorry about that mix up. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine daSupremo

22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Describing her merely as a "flagbearer" (a vague, unrevealing term) obscures her significance as described in the article. She was the National Chairperson of the Convention People's Party. She won a Presidential Primary. She was also named Female Politician of the Year in Ghana. Her notability appears much clearer than this misleading nomination reveals. Spideog (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Spideog for your input daSupremo

19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Idoghor Melody, I removed the tag because the subject clearly meets notability guidelines, and I second what Spideog has stated in support of keeping this article. Describing the subject merely as a "flagbearer" significantly downplays her notability, as Spideog rightly pointed out.

I find it surprising that the nomination suggests the subject fails WP:NPOL. The guideline clearly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. While it’s true that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", this individual exceeds those basic criteria, given her prominent leadership roles and national recognition, including her election as National Chairperson of a political party and being named Female Politician of the Year.

I would kindly advise the nominator to review the relevant notability guidelines again. This article demonstrably satisfies both the specific (WP:NPOL) and general (WP:GNG) notability standards. Repeated nominations for deletion without fully considering these criteria risk discouraging valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All what I am seeing here is WP:BLP1E. 98 percent of the Sources provided in the article are about her campaign as the flag bearer of a party to participate in an election that she did not win. 99 percent of the sources lack WP:SIGCOV and cannot be used as WP:GNG sources. Only this vaguely discusses other aspects of her life which is also tied to being a flag bearer. Also, if she had won the highest National Award of Ghana, I know this article wouldn't be in AfD. She won a non notable award, given to her by her political party. I tried to check for process of the award and could not find anything on the internet. From the above, it is very clear that this subject fails WP:NPOL and the sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055

I’m surprised by how you reviewed this article according to WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. If 98% of the sources truly lack significant coverage, I wonder whether you conducted an independent review beyond the sources already provided in the article to assess the subject’s overall notability.

Additionally, I find the repeated misinterpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV concerning articles that clearly meet the criteria quite concerning. The subject may not have won an election, but WP:NPOL explicitly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" can be notable. It also clarifies that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", but individuals in such roles can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. This subject, with significant coverage and recognition in Ghana, meets these standards.

I’m genuinely curious as to how your reviews are being conducted because the criteria seem to be applied inconsistently, leading to confusion and frustration.

To conclude, I believe the notability criteria in this case have been misinterpreted, and these types of reviews are discouraging and potentially misleading.—- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 can you list three references that significantly covered the subject? Almost all her coverage both listed here or online are either about her ambition to become the president or receiving non notable awards. However, I came across a source that would have shown something better though seems like her CV with this statement According to her curriculum vitae... Yet only this cannot convince me to vote a keep. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, I’m not trying to convince you, and I won’t attempt to convince you to vote "keep." As I stated earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how your reviews are being conducted. I would kindly advise you, as a reviewer, to carefully revisit the relevant notability guidelines, specifically WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thank you. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 13:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 I think you are the one mixing things up here. You don't have to shift the post, provide the three references that meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV if you truly understand the guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, I am neither mandated nor obligated to provide the three references you’ve requested to prove my understanding of the guidelines. I’ve already shared my submission and reasoning for why the article should be kept.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how you review articles based on these criteria, and I’ve offered my advice accordingly. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12, you are not mandated nor obligated to provide the three references that @Ibjaja055 requested, but you can express concerns about their !vote on this discussion. Nice one! Idoghor Melody (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, it would be very unnecessary to reply to my !vote, especially if you're going to be saying what you already said above. The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Please don't BLUDGEON this process. Discussions are for building consensus, not for confronting everyone who disagrees with you.

NPOL#1 says that only when a politician or judge has been elected to hold an international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office or when the politician is a member of the legislative bodies of these levels, whether they have assumed the office or not, would they be presumed notable. Not when the person was only a candidate of the election, the person has to win the election. This does not include winning a political party's primary elections. Even though leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, they are subject to the same content policies as any other article and this subject fails the general notability guideline (see a detailed source analysis below).

NPOL#2 says that Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage (emphasis mine) can be presumed notable, and that means that the politician must have been written about, in-depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, now, I don't see any of that in the coverages Nana Akosua has received so far, most of these sources are either routine coverages or cookie cutters. Below is a detailed source analysis of why Nana Akosua obviously fails the general notability guideline too.

EDIT: Also, the "Female Politician of the Year" award is a non-notable award.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/news/politics/farmer-frimpomaa/2024/	~ This is Ghana's Broadcasting Corporation, a national news corporation. Would it be independent of a presidential election? Of course not. And besides, this piece is a WP:DOGBITESMAN.		This is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1344146/cpp-flagbearer-promises-government-for-your-doors.html	I will initiate a..., ... she stated, For us in the CPP..., ... she added. It is also evident that this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN.	I don't see a reason to think a site that anyone can register on to post news (UGC) is a reliable source of information for English Wikipedia.	Again, this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Why-Nana-Akosua-Frimpomaa-of-the-CPP-wants-to-become-Ghana-rsquo-s-first-female-president-1782539	Speaking with Etsey Atisu on GhanaWeb TV's Election Desk, Nana Akosua, who is also the National Chairperson of the CPP, stressed that...	This piece lacks a byline and that is very unprofessional of a news org.	Another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://3news.com/elections/	Unaccessed, this is only a database.	No clear editorial oversight].	This is only a database.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/c1jdgrx6550o			This is another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://mx24online.com/presidential-candidates/nana-akosua-frimpomaa-convention-peoples-party-cpp/		No clear editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-cpp-flag-bearer-election-nana-frimpomaa-onsy-nkrumah-submit-forms-promise-economic-revolution-restoration.html		~ There was no consensus on whether the paper is reliable in itself, the last time it was discussed. And even though there is a Board of Directors of the company that owns this paper, there is not clear editorial oversight of the website itself.	Obviously, not of substantial coverage about the subject here.	✘ No
https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-rally-behind-cpp-to-break-duopoly-nana-frimpomaa-urges-electorate.html	Another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	~ Ditto	The single-sentence about her is insufficient substantial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.myjoyonline.com/refund-monies-collected-from-job-applicants-at-state-agencies-cpp-to-government/	Addressing the media at the party’s headquarters in Accra, the Chairperson of the Party, Nana Akosua Frimpomaa said... This piece is entirely dependent on the subject.	But of course, a WP:DOGBITESMAN.		✘ No
https://3news.com/news/politics/cpp-is-the-only-party-that-did-not-fail-ghanaians-chair/	Ditto	Ditto	Nothing like a substantial coverage on the subject here.	✘ No
https://www.asaaseradio.com/election-2024-nana-frimpomaa-sarpong-kumankuma-declared-cpp-flagbearer/			A political party's primary election result, another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://www.myjoyonline.com/election-2024-its-no-1-for-npp-no-8-for-ndc-on-ballot-paper/			Ditto	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to respectfully raise a potential concern regarding WP:CANVASS. While appropriate notification aimed at improving participation is encouraged, WP:CANVASS warns against selectively notifying users in a way that might influence the outcome of a discussion. In this case, I’ve noticed that several editors have joined the discussion with similar reasoning and viewpoints in quick succession. This has raised questions in my mind about whether notifications were issued in a manner fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, which requires neutrality and transparency when notifying users. I’m not making an accusation, and I recognize that notifying editors of discussions can be helpful when done correctly. However, to ensure a fair process, I would appreciate it if participants could clarify whether any notifications were issued and, if so, ensure they complied with WP:CANVASS guidelines.

Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This subject passes the basic WP:NPOL criteria and the general English Notability criteria. Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frimpomaa was an unsuccessful candidate, and the only coverage I can find of her is of her as a candidate. We do not keep these articles, but we are allowed to cover her candidacy on the election page, and a redirect there would make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Marano

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

Non-notable history denier. Few sources on google search, all of them more than 5 years old; this raises the prospect that the subject's notoriety was short-lived and has not endured. YouTube channel has fewer than 20K subscribers; most videos less than 5 years old have fewer than 500 views. There is mention in the Reuters source of one or more videos with over 300,000 views; however, it is not on the YouTube channel, and no other reference to this purported video could be located. Risker (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the YouTube channel has a 16-year-old video, "Westboro Baptist neutralized by the Patriot Guard Riders" that has over 900K views; its SEO tags are "Patriot Guard Riders Westboro Baptist Fred Phelps gay military funeral army navy air force marines coast guard free speech propagandabuster propaganda buster tony WBC", several of which are heavily-searched terms. The article subject is not noted to have anything to do with either Westboro Baptist Church or the Patriot Guard Riders, in the article or in any reliable source that I could locate. That makes a single highly viewed video out of 2.6K videos. Risker (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Internet, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this article because I need time to gather enough information about him. Beside I'm using information from Japan's wikipedia to create it. Besides he's one of the history deniers we need to worry about and avoid for non-Asians Youtubers. Besides, you can help me by translating the source citations from the Japanese wikipedia and get this issue resolved. Koreanidentity10000

Hello, Koreanidentity10000. I see you have been adding information from another project. Please read this information on how to copy information from another Wikimedia project, because you're not correctly attributing that information. Remember to include the reference sources when you are copying over the information. If it isn't referenced in that project, then it should not be coming to English Wikipedia. I will give you time to sort this out, but right now with your changes, it is now a copyright violation with poorly referenced or unreferenced material. Since this is a biography of a living person, this is a fairly big deal. Risker (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. This is giving him free publicity, plagiarizing another Wikimedia project, and is so poorly written and formatted that it's irredeemable. Does it matter that he's left handed? And if so, why is this not sourced? I'm surprised that an editor with 10 11 years' experience would create this, and then ask for more time to fix it. Bearian (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TNT - not sure whether to keep or delete, but needs significant work. I think sourcing suggests some notability as a far-right historian of Japan. other sources with a few mentions of Marano [100] [101] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naale (film)

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

Two unreleased films that fail to establish notability. The first film may have been unfinished, which is why it is listed here as a short film [102]. The first film was also incorrectly listed on the 2008 list of films, but the sources were emerging in mid-December 2008 and a release seemed unlikely [103].

In an attempt to salvage, the film article I added information about the second unreleased film, all passing mentions.

Additional sources assessment table

Source	Reliable?	Significant?	Notes
Indiaglitz [104]			See Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources.
Filmibeat [105]

Although, I find this database site dubious [106] Kailash29792 assured me of its usefulness for Malayalam cinema. It lists all of the released films and some unreleased films. While it lists the 2017 version as unreleased (first with a pink U and then with [ പുറത്തിറങ്ങാത്ത ചിത്രം ] (transl. [Unreleased film]), it has no mention of the 2008 film, so without a doubt that film was never released. Without proper sourcing, redirect to Dileep filmography, the only page where it is mentioned. DareshMohan (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it for now. no indication of notability and yet unreleased. sources are only spreading buzz around whether it'll will release or not and other things. HeMahon (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 01:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moeed Pirzada

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. He was one of the journalists who were targeted by the Pakistani government in 2023 under some controversial charges. Most of the sources that discuss those arrests don't talk about Pirzada in any significant depth, which is why most of his career is sourced to primary sources in this article. Since this article has been repeatedly created by sock/meatpuppets, I would recommend salting it as well. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. Badbluebus (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pirzada appears to be a notable TV host, and his legal troubles go beyond WP:BLP1E. He was arrested in 2015; news coverage of that arrest described him as a "renowned TV anchorperson". A former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju called him an "eminent Pakistani journalist" while responding to a speech of Pirzada's. His departure from Pakistan seems to have been widely covered. [107] [108] [109]. There are a number of other news stories on Google News about him. And these are just the English language results -- no doubt there is more coverage in Urdu. Jfire (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rommy Sulastyo

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NACTOR. Two films are not on Wikipedia. Only source present is "top 10 pictures with sister" and her sister is not covered on Wikipedia either. Besides that, anything I could find is either not reliable or independent. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete more sources needed and roles are not mentioned. HeMahon (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 00:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't really have the time to look into this in detail but the corresponding Indonesian article seems to show he could meet WP:NACTOR. Pinging a competent user:@Crisco 1492:, if you have time, can you let us know what you think, please? Thanks! -Mushy Yank. 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've reviewed what sources seem to be available, which include a short bio by a production house he's worked for; a brief overview from Tribun News, which I would expect to be WP:CIRCULAR given the general low quality of said publication; and the same profile at Pikiran Rakyat. None of the data provided indicates that he would meet the GNG or NACTOR; finalist (not winner) of Mr./Miss Jakarta 1994, a few soaps without articles, and some direct-to-TV films. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! -Mushy Yank. 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juboraj Shamim

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Debut director, all coverage about Adim only. Film might be notable, but the director isn't yet. Not eligible now, but could be in the future with more notable work, awards, or recognition. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Adim (page exists in Simple English) is notable then WP:NDIRECTOR might apply and he might be considered notable enough. One notable work is enough, especially for the director. Keep. https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/bangladeshi-filmmaker-juboraj-shamims-adim-maps-the-basic-instinct-of-humans/article66648484.ece https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/internationally-acclaimed-film-adim-now-chorki-3600941 https://www.tbsnews.net/splash/adim-wins-2-awards-44th-moscow-intl-film-festival-489382 https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/345496/juboraj-shamim’s-‘adim’-coming-on-ott-platform https://www.newagebd.net/article/180552/i-stayed-at-a-slum-for-adim-juboraj -Mushy Yank. 14:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Directing an award-winning film can help with notability, but it alone is not enough for inclusion. The subject lacks significant coverage and depth. First 4 sources are again about the film and 5th features quotes from the director. It is surprising and worth noting that after the film's premiere at film festivals, Chorki bought the digital release rights in May and released it on their platform. However, the film hasn't attracted any critics or received reviews from independent secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, directing an award-winning film can be a valid path for inclusion per Wikipedia:DIRECTOR, depending on the award and/or the coverage that the film received, (please read the guideline again, it's not long), etc. Coverage seems to indicate that this director is notable enough. If there was a page about the film, I would consider a redirect, but there isn't. There are other sources, like https://www.thedailystar.net/entertainment/tv-film/news/juboraj-shamims-adim-triumph-independent-filmmaking-3371421 https://businesspostbd.com/show-biz/adim-wins-big-at-new-york-2022-11-07 https://queensworldfilmfestival.org/films/the-instinct/, etc, all more or less independent but a decent albeit short article seems possible and acceptable. Thanks -Mushy Yank. 09:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with @Mushy Yank. This is the point i take this subject to write about. Thanks all for the opinion BTW. hopefully the article will survive to be in the main space. UzbukUdash (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). I only find one full-length independent review of Adim (in The Hindu), so it's not (yet) a notable film, and thus WP:NDIRECTOR is not (yet) met. Don't see a GNG pass either. (I'd say draftify but I don't trust editors not to push an article on this type of subject back into mainspace prematurely.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um Natal Rastônico

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, and insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Brazil, and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack secondary sources or reviews and the cast do not appear to be notable actors. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has a significant online engagement following on YouTube and Brasil Paralelo's streaming platform (considered the 2nd biggest in Brazil). The main star (Rasta) is a famous comedian in Brazil. About "insufficient secondary sources", Wikipedia’s guidelines allow for the use of reliable non-traditional sources. Local coverage by producer companies can - as it has in similar articles - bolster the case. I agree that there are not too many sources, but leaving the short film stub seems more than enough for this matter, as it has done in many previous articles of films (some of them with little to no online engagement at all). Examples: De la coupe aux lèvres, Lel Chamel, Khouya, Cake Day, Charlie Ve'hetzi, Une Visite, En rachâchant, Keep_Not_Silent, and many others. And it's okay, because niche films and artistic projects are often retained if they contribute to a specific cultural or artistic discourse, or if they had a relevant online presence. So even if this film doesn’t meet WP:NFILM fully, it does meet the broader standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Ben Levi YouTube views or viewership from other platforms do not count. Also, notability is not WP:INHERITED. If an article is a stub and does not have the potential to be expanded in the future, it generally should not have a dedicated article. Junbeesh (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If online popularity does not count, then you might as well set up for deletion all Wikipedia pages about YouTube celebrities etc. And the article does have potential to be expanded though. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (weak to moderate) -- Not seeing SIGCOV. Agree that it fails NFILM more than it qualifies under it. The arguments against it (so far) are more-or-less invalid; other things existing (or not existing) is a not a reason to argue for (or against) deletion, each article should be considered in a relative vacuum. The main actor being "famous" -- according to an editor, at least, though I have no reason to doubt that to be true -- is neither here nor there. Notable individuals do not confer notability, as @Junbeesh pointed-out. "Online popularity" for other things doesn't matter; Again, other things don't matter, this article and this discussion does. If an editor feels another article fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY, they are more than welcome to nominate it for deletion. MWFwiki (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in this article that indicates how or where this film was released to the public or what kind of reception it got. Short films may be notable, but they certainly aren't presumed to be notable. If the film has a "significant online engagement", there needs to be some indication in the article of how that engagement could be known to be "significant". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This could be popular but reviews are not being written about it nor are there any awards won to show the notability of the short film. I’m willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.

[1]