Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 06	February 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Battle of Massawa (1541)

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

The event is not a battle, but a mutiny that ended in a massacre. None of the sources describe it as a battle, and they only provide minimal details. The article is misleading and likely biased.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Perriam

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

This is the page for an author of novels. While she has created an extensive body of work, there seems to be little media coverage. All I've managed to find is an interview from 2009, a single book review in the same publication from 2010, and a handful of articles about one of her books winning Literary Review's Bad Sex in Fiction Award (plus a couple of stories in the New Zealand Herald 1 2 about a divorce settlement, involving a woman with the same name who doesn't seem to be the same person.)

Per WP:ANYBIO, the only criterion which might get her over the line would be that she "has received a well-known and significant award", so I'm inviting editors to comment on whether the Bad Sex Award meets this definition. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising Museum

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

This doesn't appear to be an independently notable organization. Maybe merge into ASU? mikeblas (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Museums and libraries, Organizations, Fashion, and California. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a straight copyvio for which I'm about to do some revision deletion should it be merged somewhere. An independent article could be written as sourcing exists, but this isn't it and probably easiest to start over. Star Mississippi 15:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rev del is done, but we could go even further back to be honest. It's no longer a G11 or at least less of one now. I won't be able to work on it in the AfD window but may do so in the future either as a standalone or part of the ASU article. Star Mississippi 15:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fashion_Institute_of_Design_&_Merchandising#FIDM_Museum where there is sufficient explanation of it (don't really see any information in this one that needs to be merged there. so revdel doesn't matter to the redir). Schazjmd (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It looks like the copyright violation that prompted the Delete vote has been addressed. There are now also suggestions or a Merge or Redirect but to two different target articles that might need some additional consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message Exchange Bus (MXB)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Message Exchange Bus (MXB)

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

not a single reasonable source Baratiiman (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If a user doesn’t know Persian or how to simply translate a Persian page to English with Google Translate, it doesn’t make all the Persian references unusable or unreasonable. The Persian references in this article come from the most reasonable, reliable, mainstream, and important news sites in the Persian language, some of which have more than 70 years of experience. The English references are not mainstream, but most of them are reliable and rational or at least secondhand, if not firsthand. Having problems with references doesn’t make the whole subject worthy of deletion; rather, adding more reliable references would be more reasonable.

Thank you for your time. Taha Danesh (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Danesh. The article does need work, though. With so many false statements in essay-like prose that I just removed, I wouldn't be surprised if the article was written with AI. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, participants are welcome to re-review this article which has been edited since its nomination,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George DiCaprio

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Authors. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He stills fails WP:AUTHOR, as none of his work in the bibliography is notable. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- stoshmaster (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is an admirably expressive and nuanced opinion. However, our own take matters very little as far as a person's notability is concerned. Sources rule-The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a collection of random articles nor a directory of artists. And the fact that the text has been created by a kamikaze account does not exactly help. -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chachro Raid

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

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

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

Arctic studies

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

This is not a functional SIA. None of the items on the list have "Arctic studies" in their names. Two of the links are to general branches of science that have no inherent connection to the artic, one is targeted to a section of our article on the Arctic Ocean, and one is to our article on polar (not necessarily a synonym for Arctic) meteorology. That leaves one link to an actual article that even remotely belongs on this type of list. — Anonymous 16:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 16:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, nonspecific page. Reywas92^Talk 16:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT. No doubt a useful article could be written about arctic studies, but this stub is of no use towards that future article, nor is it useful to our readers. Elemimele (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yatish Kumar

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

The only possibility I can spot for notability is the award for poetry. The rest of the article is a puff piece based upon PR and press release churnalism. I do not believe the poetry award to be sufficient for him to pass WP:BIO. I might have suggested a return to draft space, but no amount of editing can create notability 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Bihar. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center Valley, Indiana

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

Look, the cited reference says "CENTER VALLEY is a postoffice on section 25, in the southern part of the township. There is no village at that point. What more needs to be said? Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable place and factually incorrect article. Also, the IU registrar supposedly born there (reference 5) was born in 1864, apparently before the post office, so he was likely born in a different Center Valley. Anyway, without any information about this place we can't be certain of anything the article says, other than the name exists in GNIS and there was once a post office. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't in the 1895 Lippincott's as Center Valley. It's there, on page 838, as Centre Valley, a "post-hamlet" in Liberty township, with "a church and about a half-dozen houses". Yes, the 1885 History says the aforegiven, but the decade-later Lippincott's records more. Clearly, it went from there being nothing there to there being something there. Baker's Hoosier place names book has Centre Valley on page 91 and states that it was a "village". Baker also explains on that page that Center Valley moved from Morgan County across the border to Hendricks County in 1872 and there was a Center Valley from 1856. Zell's Popular Encyclopedia of 1869 confirms a Centre Valley in Morgan on page 485. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, what's a "post-hamlet" in the context above? I think that's the first time I've seen such a term. Does it mean it grew past an ordinary hamlet? – The Grid (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no "classes" or "grades" of cities in Lippincott's, as that was a 20th century innovation in some parts of the U.S.A.. It had a uniform terminology (for places in the U.S.A.): where things are hamlets, villages, towns/townships, and cities; and the hamlets, villages, and towns/townships that have post offices have "post-" prefixed to them. Things that are just post offices on their own are "post-office". Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has inaccuracies regarding the establishment of the post office and the birth year of the IU registrar. If the registrar was born in 1864, it's unlikely they were born in the Center Valley mentioned, as it was relocated in 1872. The presence of a Center Valley in Morgan County, verified by Zell's 1869 encyclopedia, further supports the claim of an earlier existence. Surya (talk) 18:43, 02 Feb 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Action Network

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

not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G11. Unequivocally does not meet WP:NORG as there is no coverage outside of their own website. Note that this page almost certainly has WP:NPOV issues based on the edit history and has been sitting here since 2007. Kylemahar902 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strictly promotional input from a one-time-only editor. — Maile (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Linux Consortium

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

looks like a paid advertising article that hasn't been updated for a long time, maybe it should be merged with the article about Linux Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser Basin Council

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Old-AgedKid (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Smith (guitarist)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kha with inverted breve

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

Deprodded by Cyclopia. They wrote that they think that there is no notabiliny guideline for letters; I think WP:GNG applies, and I doubt that sigcov exists about this topic. Janhrach (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Alaska. Janhrach (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find one-line mentions of this "letter" in Unicode documents. Nothing needing a whole article. Lack of sourcing, not showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So there can be no exceptions to notability guidelines, but deletion policy can be ignored without a reason? Peter James (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter James: How exactly did I ignore the deletion policy? Janhrach (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the article could have been merged or redirected (or proposed for merging). It's mentioned in Aleut language#Orthography so could be redirected there, or merged to Kha (Cyrillic) where there is currently no mention. Peter James (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Research Society of International Law

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

This article was clearly written by the organisation (and they were so unbiased that they had to mention so themselves!). All sources given are self-published. Searching reveals a handful of secondary sources mentioning the group, but none of them go beyond passing. — Anonymous 14:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, and Pakistan. — Anonymous 14:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siran Samuel

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

Likely not notable. Moved from PROD to AfD. Beauty titles are not notable and sourcing is not reliable. NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I had proposed deletion wih the rationale Weak or no notability, this is about a person claimed to be notable for a beauty pageant in which they did not compete. Sources are extremely dubious including "pageantisms.com" most likely a fansite. At best, this is a WP:BLP1E policy violation.. Obviously I still support deletion in this venue. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Africa. Shellwood (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeadDesk

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Braithwaite Studio

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

Available sources do not show that this company meets WP:NCORP. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, and Canada. Mekomo (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - artists' and architects' studios are by definition run of the mill, since all of them have one. The only exceptions are world-famous studios that might are turned into postmortem museums or historic sites; in this case, too soon. The individual architects don't seem to be notable, either. As a corporate entity (?) I don't see how such a small company, which hasn't received significant coverage, could be notable. Bearian (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of passing WP:ORGCRIT indeed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felix The Cat Kept On Walking

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

I had redirected this, and would suggest this as the outcome of this AfD. Neither source is significantly about the short film, and no better sources seem available that give this film more than a passing mention or a database treatment in lists of animated shorts or in more general Felix the Cat sources. This, with a short plot summary, is about the most extensive source I could find. In books specifically about Felix it gets nothing but a mention[1] Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as in the nom. I must thank both of you this morning; Fram's nomination at Herostratus's suggestion gave me exposure to an old film I'd never seen. I had a friend (long since passed) who was a huge fan of Felix, and as a child I was frequently exposed to many of these shorts on TV in Honolulu. As much as I'm happy to see these films available and in the public domain, I concur with Fram's source analysis above. I'm interested to see if Herostratus can find more direct detailing. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but, on further consideration, let's rename and rearrange -- let's make the article be about the song, which seems more notable (and came first), so rename the article to the song name ("Felix Kept On Walking") and move the film stuff down to the bottom (or delete it, but why).

As a song It meets WP:NSONG I would say (the song is notable if it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...This includes published works in all forms", and "all forms" would include advertisements and chinaware and toys and t-shirts and what have you I think, and there are plenty of those (([2]) and some even still today ([3], [4]). and it meets 2 of the 3 supplementary bullet points (which are not proof of notability, but are worth considering and de facto considered pretty much sufficient I think): "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", which they didn't have charts in the 1920s I don't think, but the song was clearly a hit which would have at least made the Hot 100 surely, and "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists", which we have a number of artists notable enough to have their own articles covering it.

It is true that there aren't any reviews or articles on the song, but this was 100 years ago, there weren't even music magazines then, and things were generally different then, and so of course not; I think we need to be a little flexible here or else we are going to end up overemphasizing recent material just because we have the sources for it rather than it being actually more notable, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says not to do that.

And on top of that there's even a whole idiom based on the song (obscure and obsolete, granted, but still) -- "well, Felix kept on walking" probably something like "Well, another day in paradise" or something. I don't think we should throw info like that back into the darkness.

Whether to leave the stuff about the film in a short section at the bottom is a judgement call, something for the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your extremely expansive reading of WP:NSONGS is contradicted by the explanatory footnote about the "non-trivial" nature of the published works: ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. " Advertisements, chinaware, t-shirts, ... are not reliable sources and thus don't count towards meeting WP:NSONG. A deviant art page similarly is of no value for this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hi Fram. I am glad that you are here with us, hope things are going well for you here.

OK. So, there are three things to untangle here for sources, reliability, notability and standing.

So, considering the pictures of the banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts, of course these entities do exist and we can rely on that. Yes, there is an (infintesimal) chance that maybe for one of them somebody decided to deploy their time, effort, and advanced photoshop skills to make a fake photo of a non-existent object, for some unfathomable reason, I suppose. That there is a pattern of this (which no one has picked up and reported this highly amazing, very high-effort conspiracy involving a number of people) is about as likely as the moon landing being a hoax, so we can dismiss that and agree that the photos of the tchockes and other stuff are indeed photos of actually existing objects. All entities are reliable for their own contents. A website of a photo of a Felix the Cat doll is reliable for that photo. Maybe not for other details like when and where it was made and by who, but for the photo, which is what I am referring to. As you know, many sources are reliable for some of their content, and unreliable for others. Whether I would use these sources in the article is a different issue.

So all these are real things. Do they indicate notability? Well of course they do. People don't banks and ads and toys and cups and t-shirts etc.for obscure entities. They just don't is all, because that would be silly and a dumb business model, and if they did that by itself would 'probably confer notability I think. Having one or two or three of these doesn't demonstrate notability. The plethora of tchotchkes we do have does.

Again, we are not going to have magazine reviews of the song because the world didn't work like that then. We also don't have magazine reviews of 17th century chanson. Doesn't mean anything.

So we have reliable indication of notability, done. If we can't use those sources, that's a problem, but it's a technical problem, the main fact that the entity is notable, so it's our job to find a way to keep the article if we can. Notable entities should have articles. (Anyway, we can use these sources. If one wants to play WP:DMV it it could be argued that rule 17, paragraph 4, subparagraph 6, bullet point 3 (or whatever) proscribes that, and then we'd have to dig up a contradicting rule (most rules have 'em) but really just say WP:NOTBURO and move on.

Anyway, doesn't matter cos 1) the song was covered by many notable artists, and 2) was surely up there in the "chart" of record sales and sheet music sales (they didn't play records on the radio much yet I believe), altho any figures are probably lost to history. This seems self-evident and the burden would be on editors trying to disprove it, I would say; and I don't think that any song that meets both these criteria has been deleted, or if so, not many and those cases would be mistakes, because of course we don't want to 404 readers searching such a notable entity when we already have an article. And really what rules are supposed to codify common good practice, and that trumps a rule that tries to hold the dam against the river of common good practice. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I can't be sure if any of tchockes with the phrase preceded the song or not. They very probably came from the song, but we can't be sure, so I don't thin we should even mention. Since works of art are their own regs, all of the article is ref'd (technically) even tho there's only two refs at the botton. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I WP:HEYed the article, so it is now mainly about the song, so we are looking at NSONG and so forth. It's basically a different article, so I think the best next move, Fram, is to close this AfD, then can retitle the article (to the song title), and if you want you can make a new nomination of the song. I wouldn't because as a song it's not likely to be deleted, and if it is that would be unfortunate cos it's as good as very many of our other song articles, and no gain in causing unfortunate things. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since this article was reworked such that it is mostly now about the song... does it pass WP:NSONG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Herostratus' improvements. Toughpigs (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Felix the Cat. To the relister's question, I'm not seeing on what basis this passes WP:NSONG. The sources are either primary or only treat the topic in passing in relation to the larger concept of Felix the Cat. I went looking in Google Scholar and the mentions were the same there. If this is all we can reliably say on the topic, then it can be covered in the main article in summary style without any major loss to the reader and can split out if it reaches undue weight from reliable, independent sources. czar 13:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as immediately above. First because the improvements do not remotely meet WP:HEY standards. Second because the arguments for !keep are obviously spurious (1. We don't use t-shirts to show notability 2. The t-shirts don't even necessarily reference the song). This page could easily be merged as a shortish section on Felix the Cat. JMWt (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with JMWt. There are no t-shirts in the article that I can see. And for obvious reasons I don't think that anyone above had fully researched the … erm … songs. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Belleville, Indiana

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

Possibly the second least reliable source used in GNIS updates would be state highway maps (NOAA charts are worse and fortunately very little-used). The spot in question is next to a now-abandoned PRR rail line west out of Cartersburg, and it may have been a rail spot, but tthere is just nothing there on any map. I can't image why the Indiana DOT felt the need to label an unimportant T intersection next to the tracks which appear to have just been taken up, but in any case I find no real testimony for this as a settlement. Baker seems to be just reading the name off the map as there was certainly nothing there when he wrote his work. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker on page 244 says a "village" that is literally north of Belleville, Indiana, but gives no dates. The 1895 Lippincott's should have this on page 2009 with the other "North Something"s, but does not. It has Belleville proper on page 620, also giving the name of the railroad that it was on. There's no North Belleville anywhere in the Arcadia Publishing books on Plainfield (ISBN 9780738594484) and Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970).
Looking backwards in time, however, the Indiana State Gazetteer and Shippers' Guide for 1866–67 has North Belleville "on the Terra Haute & Indianapolis rail-road, 1 mile north of Belleville" but does not say what it was. The 1854 Baldwin and Thomas A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States has North Belleville on page 831 and says that it was a "village" located "19 miles W. by S. from Indianapolis". So Baker and the contemporary mid-century gazetteers agree that this was a village on the railroad. It's in a 1856 Lippincott's as well, but has dropped out of Lippincott's by the end of the 19th century, whereas Belleville has remained listed, despite the implication of Baker and our Belleville, Indiana article that North Belleville was where the railroad was re-routed to.
There definitely was a village there, and it was definitely on one railroad. The gazetteers confirm it; but they give almost no detail, not even the usual listing of some buildings, and the histories (I also checked Hadley's 1914 History of Hendricks County, Indiana.) are mute on it entirely.
Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a social para in a newspaper from 1915 (The Reporter-Times, Martinsville, Indiana) [5] that says a family called Garshwiler were moving to their new home in North Belleville. Before that date, there are reports that a station was opened there in 1890 [6] (if that's the same North Belleville - it doesn't help that there were also places of that name in other states!); a man died there in 1881 [7]; someone was injured trying to jump onto a train at North Belleville in 1886 [8]; and someone was killed there in 1896 while riding on top of a night express train that went under a bridge [9] (those 3 are pretty definitely the Indiana North Belleville). So it sounds like it had homes, a station and a bridge over the railway line. Not much help, sorry! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Despite the sparse info we have on it, the above commentary argues in favor of keeping (and improving if possible).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This tax-assessment notice from the Belleville Daily Advocate of May 16, 1914, refers to "the town of North Belleville." Per WP:MIRACLEON34THSTREET, we're done. Carrite (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Dance (poem)

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept in 2013 on the assumption that it could be expanded. Well, it technically could be: A few more sentences could be added from the one reliable source to cover it. But I cannot find any other RS that discuss the poem. The other source currently cited is a now-defunct blog without editorial review, so not reliable. The only other thing I've found is that it is quoted in The 4-Hour Workweek, a self-help book, but I cannot find any secondary sources discussing that, so this does not confer any notability either. Furthermore, even the Snopes article isn't really about the poem: It's about a hoax based on the poem. An article on the hoax would have a slightly better chance at passing GNG, but I think would still fail. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disclosure: I am the original creator of this article. As nom says, nothing has changed since the first nomination. The article can and in time will be expanded. Yes, the article could be rescoped to be about the hoax rather than the poem itself, but this would not affect the notability of the topic in any way. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you intend to / expect others to expand it with? If there are reliable sources I'm missing other than the one Snopes piece, I'm happy to reconsider this nomination. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 20:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on Tamzin's assessment of the sources, this poem is not notable. If this assessment is challenged or more sources are found, please ping me and I will take another look. Toadspike [Talk] 20:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created in 2010 and, as of this writing, has zero meaningful incoming links. A topic that's notable probably wouldn't be orphaned all this time. 162 etc. (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panorays

AfDs for this article:

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

The article appears to lack reliable sources beyond trade press, with much of the coverage focusing primarily on fundraising events. the previous discussion was not good and some media outlets which are not reliable were marked as reliable, e.g. this one: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/tech-news/2021-10-04/ty-article/.premium/an-israeli-startup-wants-to-keep-you-and-your-customers-safe-from-cyberattacks/0000017f-e17b-d804-ad7f-f1fb4bbd0000 it has only passing mentions and comments from the company Linkusyr (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find much else other than passing and/or routine coverage. Doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Procyon117 (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Linkusyr Could you explain why what's clearly an entire article focused on the company (though in a pretty promotional light) is just passing mentions? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what I said last time. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is either of routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV) or a brief quote in an article about something else entirely. Brandon (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is the Haaretz article "about something else entirely"? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's World Chess Championship 1934 (non-FIDE)

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

This was not a world championship match. It was an informal casual match played in Amsterdam (rather than Rotterdam as suggested in the article). I've taken a look at some news sources from the time, and nothing suggests that the world title was at stake (plus, a title match of just four games is absolutely unheard of). I can't find any evidence that suggests that this was actually a match for the world championship, or one of any significance for that matter. [10] 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 9ninety (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Dutch newspapers of the time can be checked online for free. They covered the match quite extensively. I introduced a citation in the article, for ease of reference. The 1934 Menchik-Graf match was indeed an informal match over four games, played at Max Euwe´s home in Amsterdam. The title of World Champion was not on the line. The match is adequately mentioned in the articles about Vera Menchik and Sonja Graf, see here and here and there is no reason to have a standalone article on the match. An alternative to deletion might be to rename this article 1934 Menchik-Graf match only to blank-and-redirect it to the relevant section in the Vera Menchik article. I don´t really see the point and consider deletion the best option. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Deletion contested on talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible rename. The second source in the article, which is essentially clippings from 'International Championship Chess: A complete record of FIDE events' by B.M. Kazic (Batsford, 1974), Chapter 10, titled 'Women World Chess Champions; From Vera Menchik to Nona Gaprindashvili' (p.259-267) notes that this was a privately organized challenge match for the title in which Menchik retained her title. This biography of Menchik says the multiple other sources saying that are wrong: [11] (pg. 128), so there seems to be some sort of historiographical dispute (which maybe should be mentioned) Yes, it wasn't sanctioned by FIDE, but private challenges was the norm for the open title between the two best women players, so being "unofficial" doesn't mean the chess world wouldn't have recognized it (indeed, the next challenge match between the same two in 1937 was officially sanctioned). If Dutch newspapers covered it quite extensively, then it WP:GNG is met and the real issue is what the title should be. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not that it was an unrecognized match for the title (like Fischer–Spassky (1992 match)), it's that it wasn't even intended to be a title match. The source which claims this was a privately organized match for the title also claims that it was played in Rotterdam, which is verifiably incorrect (all newspapers from the time state that it was in Amsterdam). None of the newspapers make any mention of a world title match either. While private challenges was indeed the norm for the open title, the women's title was controlled by FIDE from the start. Being covered in newspapers of the time isn't enough for a rather insignificant casual chess match to warrant an article. 9ninety (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute over if it was was significant enough to be noted in the Tanner source from 2016. My mention of the Dutch articles at the time was to show that it isn't just recent interest, but something that was covered then and today, including being listed alongside world championships as Kazic does (regardless of if it was a challenge match or not would seem to meet WP:GNG. We should probably rename it, but it's preferable to have a short article here which can be summarized in the Menchik and Graf articles instead of trying to fit it into both per WP:NOPAGE in terms of organization/duplication.

Do the newspapers actually report it as being in Amsterdam? I don't read Dutch, but the newspaper linked in the nomination statement only has Amsterdam in the dateline, which only means that it was filed from there which isn't impossible given the distance and communications technology. Our article on Euwe does say that he spent a stint in Rotterdam between 1926 and WWII without further details, and he wrote the foreword to Kazic's book where the match is mentioned, so you would think it would've been brought up. Tanner and this biography of Euwe, which also very briefly mentions the match, notes that it was in Rotterdam a few pages into Chapter 2. [12] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Tanner also notes that the match was the subject of discussion by an Eales source as to whether FIDE truly controlled the title (though incorrectly as Tanner asserts), but I cannot access it. So that's at least three sources that discuss the championship title question/historiography of the event. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is this match any more notable than Lasker–Janowski 1909? That was also a relatively high-profile casual match with multiple sources claiming or discussing its status as a championship match. However, since it was proven to not be a championship match, it receives no more than a passing mention in List of World Chess Championships, not an entire dedicated article. The match in question here was clearly not a championship match. 9ninety (talk) 07:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. If there's a similar or greater amount of coverage of that match than WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT would be met and I would encourage you to to create the article. Regardless, if we were to follow that example, we would be merging this content to the women's equivalent of List of World Chess Championships (i.e. Women's World Chess Championship or Development of the Women's World Chess Championship), not deleting. Though if the 1909 match was not a title match, maybeit shouldn't be there and should only be covered in the background section of World Chess Championship 1910 (Lasker–Janowski), for which the analogue here would be (Women's World Chess Championship 1937 match).

Tanner doesn't explain why the match wasn't a title match besides simply asserting that previous chess historians didn't do their research properly without specifics. Eales and Kazic both assert that it was a title match and Kazic would've had the opportunity to speak to Euwe, who hosted the event and did the foreword for his book, so I don't think it's correct to say that The match in question here was clearly not a championship match. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this into the background section of Women's World Chess Championship 1937 match sounds like a good solution. According to our article on Vera Menchik, Graf's performance in the four-game match initiated negotiations for an official world championship match in London, which never materialized. This might explain how the confusion regarding this match arose.

This newspaper reports that the match was played in Amsterdam. As I've pointed out, none of the news coverage of the match mentions it to be a world championship, so the best source we have for that claim is a book which was published forty years after the fact.

Page 15 of Tanner's book notes that "This (match) is of some interest and the source of a little confusion. A few sources (most notably Richard Eales in Chess: The History of a Game) list it as a World Championship match but the evidence is quite convincing that this was not the case". He also says "It is possible that this match was put together as a prelude to the Amsterdam event where the two women played in “different but equal" sections of the tournament", but I'm not sure which event he is referring to here. 9ninety (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah listing this information there at the 1937 article makes the most sense. So my first choice would be to merge there. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Battle of Valjevo

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

Seems to be very poorly sourced, with the only decent sources not really covering this. Also riddled with peacock wording (at least in part following some of the (poor) sources).. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable on it's own, part about the "air battle" or a skirmish could be just included in the particular NATO Operation. Used by revisionists to synth another victory out of a single downed plane, Serbian plane to that. YBSOne (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The incident is already mentioned here. YBSOne (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable, and completely inconsistent. Did they fight 16 planes or 2 planes. Flying towards a formation of 16 planes doesn't mean 16 planes engaged in combat. This seems to be more about attempting to memorialise a pilot and create some revisionist myth than create an encyclopaedia article. Individual losses or skirmishes are rarely notable and I see nothing that makes this pass any notability criteria. Canterbury Tail talk 18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep which sources are poor? The BBC? Novosti? The book that has several paragraphs of significant coverage of the battle? This seems to easily pass WP:GNG and just needs some cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do the BBC say about this battle? Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note as well just how much then book differs from the tone of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BBC specifically references the bombing of "Krušik" factory, the book specifically references the battle. There's really two things going on here - the topic itself should be notable, but the article itself needs to be WP:TNT'd as it is more about Pavlović than the battle. SportingFlyer T·C 02:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable aircraft, carrying a non-notable person, being shot down fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, GNG is pretty clearly satisfied here, albeit in Serbian. I admit there's a good argument to delete the article on NOT grounds, but we should be able to have an article on this topic if better focused and written. SportingFlyer T·C 07:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, an aircraft being shot down during a military conflict is clearly non-notable unless there are some special aspects (type, crew, weapon used etc.) that make it notable. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the details of this particular incident are known, but it is just one air to air engagement in a larger NATO operation. This article appears to have created to try to highlight some sort of success by the Yugoslav pilot against NATO, which is a bit short of NPOV really. There is also a bit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL going on. Just merge what is unique to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the page i think the page should be removed, it has become a mess of changing result and other things. Plus an page for this event already exists on Milenko Pavlović page. Red Spino (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Historical figure of cultural significance. And there are multiple reliable sources mentioned as citations. Maybe this article needs to be improved. But before nominating for deletion, you should always consider Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You suggest that the article be kept but it's up to you to search for the necessary sourcing. Claims to the tune of "Surely, there are sources" or "This is a historical subject" count for nothing, I'm afraid. -The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cultural significance can be mirrored in the high amount of prilgrims seeking blessings by the figure as a saint until today (WP:RECENTISM) (WP:NOTE) (WP:GNG). Sources are independant and confirm the notability in a verifiable and traceable manner (WP:RS) (WP:V). Hence this topic has no self-promotion inherent and meets encyclopedic standards (WP:NOT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonnaise.sandiwch.123 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:54, 30 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!} 05:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: while the article has undergone an expansion and more citations have been added to it, multiple references within the article do not look reliable. For example, Tazkare Khwanadane Hazrat Eshan published by a company that is part of the organization which the article subject is a member of- the Naqshbandi order or Naqshbandiyya, and E. J. W. Gibb Memorial by Nicholson, Reynold. The other sources need to be evaluated- they need to be reliable, independent and non-primary sources. Then, the article should be cleaned up, and any content attributed to unreliable or otherwise inappropriate sources should be removed. Then, what remains should be considered and the discussion on whether or not the article should be kept can continue. HyperShark244 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request: cleanup the article Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband and remove all content that is not verified through reliable, independent and non-primary sources from the article. Pinging @Onel5969: @HistoryofIran: @UrielAcosta: HyperShark244 (talk) 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup complete, all content not attributed to reliable, independent and non-primary sources removed. Thank you HistoryofIran and UrielAcosta! HyperShark244 (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Onel5969: @HistoryofIran: @UrielAcosta: @Kinu: @Xxanthippe: @Bearian: @TH1980: I hope you don't mind me pinging you. Lets get this AfD debate over with. HyperShark244 (talk) 10:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. The remaining citations aren't the most impressive, and I can't find a single mention of this figure in Google ebooks. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant cover. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject cannot meet WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European Regions Airline Association

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

Moving from PROD to AfD. Looks like not meeting NCORP but maybe some sources do exist NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Aviation, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Europe, Belgium, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Garcete

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

Notability is questioned; no good reliable sources found. But there are two beauty pageant titles. The page was PRODed NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Paraguay. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had proposed deletion wih the rationale Single source biography, likely to fail to meet GNG, also happens to be a creation of a sockfarm who created poor articles for every contestant at Miss Universe 2015. Obviously I still support deletion in this venue.

By the way, the nominator correctly notes that the bio claims two pageant titles. However only one of them is sourced since I removed blog sourcing [13]. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. Coeusin (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AXS Pte Ltd

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are mentions, routine announcements, or otherwise unreliable so not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Not sure how this made it out of AfC after being draftified and then being made even more promotional by SPA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Must be re-written to exclude promotional content and adhere to neutrality. While CNMall41 I understand your sentiment, this company passes WP:NCORP by being covered multiple times in The Straits Times, SG Business Times, and The Mothership (at the very least), all independent sources in Singapore. All articles I've checked have author name and no sponsored credentials. There are more than 20 sources listed on the page, with at least 3 unique ones I've mentioned. Would you please specify how that fails WP:NCORP? Silvymaro (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He explained that in the nomination. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a list of the references you feel meet WP:ORGCRIT. Also, the statement "have author name and no sponsored credentials" raises red flags.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41, I believe the article about AXS Pte Ltd should not be deleted, as it meets Wikipedia's WP:NCORP criteria for notability. Here’s why:

Significant Coverage: The company has been featured multiple times in The Straits Times, SG Business Times, and The Mothership, all of which are reliable, independent sources. For example:
- "AXS launches app for cardless parking at some malls and commercial buildings". CNA. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
- "联合创办人吴麟书：AXS可成为区域首个跨市场付款金融科技公司". www.zaobao.com.sg (in Simplified Chinese). Retrieved 20 January 2025.
Independent Sources: All cited articles are written by third-party journalists, with no paid sponsorships or press release content. These are all national newspapers and publications in Singapore - Straits Times: Daily newspaper in Singapore - Channel News Asia: Singaporean national locally and international free-to-air terrestrial and satellite television news channel - Zaobao: is the largest Singaporean Chinese-language newspaper with a daily circulation of about 136,900 (print and digital) as of 2021. - Mothership: Mothership’s, press accredited digital media platform that was approved by the Ministry of Communications and Information in Singapore which has access to government information, news, and events.
Meeting Notability Guidelines AXS Pte Ltd fulfills WP:NCORP, as it is a key player in Singapore’s electronic payment ecosystem.

If there are specific changes or improvements still required, I’m happy to work on them further. I kindly request that the article not be deleted, as the company’s notability is supported by credible sources and its impact on Singapore’s payment landscape. Thank you for your consideration. Elvintjs11 (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elvintjs11, try again without using AI to write your response. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 04:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Elvintjs11:, please see WP:CIR. If you are unable to look at the specific guideline provided to you (WP:ORGCRIT) and provide a simply response with a list of references meeting that criteria, I won't be able to assist you with reviewing them. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is clearly a major service in Singapore and meets WP:NCORP based on the coverage by major Singapore media over the years. The article was very promotional and I suggest a rewrite, I have already toned it down somewhat and I agree with Silvymaro that this subject is notable and needs a cleanup. It should also probably be renamed as per WP:NCCORP to remove the "Pte Ltd" unless needed for disambiguation. Sargdub (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: !Keep votes, kindly stick to specific P&Gs of Wikipedia in your rationale that explains why this article should be included, along with references supporting your claim. Relisting for further discussion and a source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.zaobao.com.sg/finance/singapore/story20240630-3944166	Interview			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20240826064905/https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/newpaper20010414-1.2.16.1	Inaccessible link			✘ No
https://eservices.mas.gov.sg/fid/institution/detail/796-AXS-PTE-LTD			Listing	✘ No
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=1qBKAQAAIAAJ&q=%22AXS+pte+ltd%22+OR+%22AXS+Infocomm+Pte+Ltd%22&redir_esc=y			Nothing in the preview	✘ No
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/now-every-singaporeans-own-axs-053019176.html				? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20250110105641/https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/services/Reference-and-Research-Services/Microfilm-Services				? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20250110105641/https://www.nlb.gov.sg/main/services/Reference-and-Research-Services/Microfilm-Services			Unrelated link	? Unknown
https://www.sgcarmart.com/articles/news/motorists-can-now-pay-malaysian-traffic-fines-at-axs-stations-16120?utm_source=chatgpt.com			~	✘ No
[14], [15] and [16]	Inaccessible link			✘ No
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/dbs-axs-team-up-to-offer-digital-and-mobile-payment-for-condo-fees				? Unknown
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/dbs-axs-team-up-to-offer-digital-and-mobile-payment-for-condo-fees	No byline			✘ No
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/dbs-to-sell-majority-stake-in-axs-to-private-equity-firm-tower-capital-asia			~	~ Partial
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/banking/axs-to-allow-payments-in-digital-currencies-in-tie-up-with-crypto-payment-firm				✘ No
https://mustsharenews.com/axs-mobile-app-cryptocurrencies/		Seems to have no editorial oversight		✘ No
simplify bill payments, [17] and [18]	Press release			✘ No
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/axs-app-cardless-parking-car-parks-shopping-malls-commercial-buildings-4484721	Press release	Repost		✘ No
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/axs-drive-app-enables-cardless-012101529.html?guccounter=1	Press release			✘ No
[19], [20], [21]	Press release	~		✘ 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}}.

Fails WP:GNG per above. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Came across this article and as someone from the local country itself, I agree that it is a significant service in Singapore and should be kept. While then article may require refinement, it does not make its content “false” given its numerous articles from reputable media sources in the country. It might be worth noting as well that Singapore does enforce strict regulations on media channels through their [[Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019|, which requires media channels to ensure the accuracy of the information that is published as a means to combat the spread of false information or “fake news” to its citizens 122.11.246.16 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll entertain this for half a minute. Tell us the sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT in order to establish notability under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @CNMall41, understand that you may have concerns with the article meeting the organisation notability, however most of the sources are being archived in the National library, however I have also added a few new sources which I felt that may contribute to the notability of AXS. Understand that the Wikipedia may have strict guidelines, but as a fellow writer myself, please do give me some time to be familiar with the Wikipedia environment as well. I have found some useful links which I feel contributed to the significant coverage of AXS.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Elvin
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://sg.news.yahoo.com/now-every-singaporeans-own-axs-053019176.html	Third Party News aggregator	Has no affiliation with the company in discussion.	Details out the new services that were made by the company during that time.	✔ Yes
https://eservices.mas.gov.sg/fid/institution/detail/796-AXS-PTE-LTD	Its the Singaporean govt. its a separate entity from the company. (denoted by the PTE LTD in the name)	Singaporean Govt affiliated site that deals with matters relating to finance and economics in the country and regulates financial institutions and their operations.	While it could be considered as inherited notability, the way that it is utilized is to show this organization's classification, licenses that it holds in the country and is recognized and regulated by the local government's (MAS) legislations on financial institutions.	✔ Yes
https://www.straitstimes.com/business/dbs-to-sell-majority-stake-in-axs-to-private-equity-firm-tower-capital-asia	A news article from a reputable independent news platform in the country	An independent news platform in singapore	Covers and details out the acquisition of the company, % of stakeholder shares acquired and the intentions of the acquisition. In my opinion this does “address the topic in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content.”	✔ Yes
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/375-ocbc-customers-charged-twice-transactions-axs-2596021	News article from reputable news platform in Singapore	Independent news platform in Singapore, separate from Straits Times.	It address the double charge technical fault that happen in AXS and OCBC.	✔ Yes
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/international/motorists-can-now-pay-msian-traffic-fines-axs-terminals-here	News article from reputable news platform in Singapore	Independent news platform in Singapore, separate from Straits Times.	This is a significant coverage as it concerns out of Singapore context, but regional coverage.	✔ Yes
https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/newspapers/digitised/article/today20050503-2.2.42.2.1	News article from reputable news platform in Singapore	Independent news platform in Singapore, separate from Straits Times.	This is a significant coverage written for AXS explaining the increase in kiosks during 2005.	✔ Yes
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/axs-app-cardless-parking-car-parks-shopping-malls-commercial-buildings-4484721	News article from reputable news platform in Singapore	Independent news platform in Singapore, separate from Straits Times.	In this article, it clearly details out how the service works and its limitations such as where it can be used and what payment options can be used currently.	✔ Yes
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}}.

Elvintjs11 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I understand it does take time to become familiar with WP:NCORP. I have been a student of it for the last 10+ years. I used my experience in company deletion discussions to evaluate the references you provided (thank you for providing them).

Yahoo is an aggregator. This reference says it was originally from the "Vulcan Post" which is a commercial website promoting companies. Not indepdent and no editorial oversight so fails WP:ORGCRIT.

Monetary Authority is a government website and just verifies that AXS exists. Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH.

Straits Times is a reliable source but this is a WP:ROUTINE announcement of an investor divesting its shares. Nothing in-depth about the company.

CNA, another routine announcement with nothing in-depth about the company.

Business Times, also looks like a routine announcement but paywalled so cannot see the entire article.

This may be close to meeting ORGCRIT but the article is not about AXS, it only mentions it along with other kiosk companies.

CNA, this not only is a routine announcement, but amounts to WP:CHURNALISM.

Unfortunately, I do not see how these show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the context of MAS being used, while it just verifies that it exists and may not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, it needs to be taken within the context of how the material is used.And in this case it is used to simply support the claim that it is a licensed payment institution under the Payment Services Act regulated by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Thus I do think that it can be considered significant coverage that meets the guidelines.
WP:Routine seems to be an extremely vague guideline. While it notes that Planned coverage of scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine, the “WP:What is and is not routine coverage” notes that “routine coverage is not a disqualification for notability” and “routine coverage may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines"
1. Further some of the examples that the guideline provides that suggest notability is vague. Such as
  1. Medium-sized or longer news articles describing one or more candidates or election-related event. With no quantitative length of what can be considered a medium or long news article really is.
  2. If that were the case, the news articles that were marked as “routine announcements” are describing one or more company related initiatives/updates to its services and offerings in the space. Furthermore, those articles can be considered as medium sized news articles.
I believe that this article should meet ORGCRIT as the guidelines itself notes that “Per the Wikipedia:General notability guideline, the subject of the article "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" for that source to count towards notability. Do not discard source material that is about the subject merely because the source also contains information that is not about the subject.
1. In this case, the main topic of the source material is regarding the kiosk market landscape and its growth in Singapore during its release. Thus, by this definition, it meets the notability guidelines. Further, the content about the company is not insignificant either as the company was included and delves into things about the company such as its monthly user statistics, services provided, its market size in Singapore and going as far as to provide images of an AXS kiosk.
I do not see how the CNA article constitutes as a routine announcement or WP:Churnalism. This article is simply news coverage on a company’s new service, there is no indication of it being a press release or “Churnalism” given that it objectively mentions what this service is, what it aims to achieve in its incorporation, its growth objectives (and market share that it seeks to achieve) and its limitations.
1. Further in “WP:Churnalism” it notes that as a general indication of such sources is to perform a search in a search engine using the “Title of the article”. In which case, this article has a unique title amongst similar coverage on this topic, hosted on the publisher’s own website.
2. In addition, the article is also bylined by a named author that is listed as an author under the news platform that the article was published on.

Elvintjs11 (talk) 10:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention. I made mine based on the experience I have had with AfD on companies and working in the WikiProject Companies space. Also, I left a message on your talk page that you didn't reply to. Can you take a look?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayillian

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

Disputed Draftifiction. Under WP:DRAFTOBJECT it cannot be returned to draft unilaterally. DRaftified by Justlettersandnumbers earlier today and almost immediately returned to mainspace. References are in a parlous state. If it can be rescued in mainspace then I hope for a WP:HEY outcome. I doubt that returning it to draft 'in hope of improvement' will work. Tone is advertorial and full of peacockery. As presented here fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the page is not in line with GNG and anybio. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once I discovered that the image in the infobox is an unpublished variant (arm is in a different position) of the new 2025-01-23 profile picture that the subject published on xyr social media accounts, randomly listed as references in this article, the paid editing alarm went off at high volume. An independent volunteer editor does not magically gain access to the subject's unpublished publicity shots, but someone who is being sent PR material by the subject does. So I'm going with straight up delete as undeclared, biased, and outright bad paid editing that we should not keep just in case it might be fixed. Uncle G (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe move back to draftspace, but it would need significant work to be a possible article (regardless of any doubts about it being paid for) — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 14:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C._N._Karunakaran#Biography: mentioned there (merge most significant projects in another sentence, if needed) -Mushy Yank. 16:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect, do not draftify. I'd have liked to speedily delete this, but decided A7 couldn't apply because of some faint claims of significance, and wasn't convinced that G11 was 100% justified; I apologise if I was wrong on either count. Of the eight references, three are just social media pages, three are Google searches that don't mention him, one is an advertisement for a Sodastream-type device, and one is a press-release from the subject about a show of his father's work. There's not one independent reliable source in the page, and the only verifiable fact is that he is the son of his father. WP:NOTINHERITED applies, so there's no reliable indication of notability at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, United Arab Emirates, Kerala, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Ingilby

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ingilby is a British business woman, and the article includes multiple news sources describing her work on the castle as a hotel, bar, and event venue. Yes, she is married to man who inherited the castle, but they both run the business. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catskill Mountain 3500 Club

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Sports, and New York. Graywalls (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are a few mentions like this [22] but lacks in-depth coverage. Gheus (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found more indepth coverage and I am adding it ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the references added by Daniel Case (talk) after deletion nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Behappyar. Daniel Case (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

FilmXtra Uncut

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

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

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

Giving Back Magazine

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

This promotional article for a local lifestyle magazine is a WP:REFBOMB that despite 31 citations has not a single source that qualifies for WP:GNG. Consider:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the magazine in coverage, mostly non-independent, or official bios of its founders: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
Brief mentions of the magazine's coverage of organizations featured in it in blog posts by those own organizations (self-referential and not secondary) [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]
WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs such as the magazine's trademark, gov docs and its own webpages: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]
WP:USERGENERATED business directories: [47], [48], [49], [50]
Pure advertising for Giving Back magazine: [51]

A BEFORE search turns up nothing else. A note on page history: I draftified an earlier version of this page to give the creator time to make improvements, but the page creator requested deletion of the draft and posted a mostly identical version to mainspace again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Mexico, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The first issue was published in 2007, so it’s a relatively old publication. The magazine has covered major regional events, for example, the coverage of Prince Albert II’s visit. It also documents local events in the San Diego-Tijuana area, including philanthropy and community events. There is some coverage in reliable sources as well, and I believe Fox News is good enough to show notability. The previous version had approximately 20 citations. This one has more than 30. Tnifty (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of red herrings here. The age of the publication is of no relevance to its notability. The events the publication has covered are of no relevance to its notability. The Fox source you refer to (not Fox News but San Diego's local Fox affiliate) has a single sentence that says: Giving Back Magazine partners with several organizations in San Diego and Tijuana and showcases the people and companies that are doing good in the communities. (This is not WP:SIGCOV that qualifies toward notability.) The number of citations has no bearing on notability (and indeed, a large number may undermine the case for it; see WP:REFBOMB). Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine is recognized by the San Diego Tourism Authority as part of the region’s Ethnic Print Media, noting its role in documenting local events and community projects. It has been cited on local TV stations in both English and Spanish. The Fox News link also had a video interview, though that appears to have been removed. CBS8 News cited the magazine as a source for a story on a local philanthropist. Nonprofits such as the San Diego History Center and Resounding Joy have referenced the magazine when promoting their events. Regarding the reference bomb claim, many of the sources cited come from government organizations and non-profits which are independent sources. Tnifty (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 31 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) 10:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkana Sharma

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Gurschler

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

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS as the only coverage is in databases showing at most exactly the kind of participation-based notability that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE.

De'Prodded by BeanieFan11 with the comment "according to Olympedia, he later was an engineer and owned his own construction company - there's a decent chance he'd have received coverage for Olympedia to know that so I think this would warrant afd". With the maximum respect to Beanie, this does not state a keep reason within our PAGs. Having owned a company and been an engineer is not a credible reason to keep an article, or assume that there would have been any coverage of the subject. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point with my comment in the deprod is this: how would Olympedia know that he was later an engineer and businessman? Surely there was somewhere they got that from... BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From the Frank English case it appears that Olympedia updates their listings based on a range of inputs, including stuff that isn't in what we would call a reliable source (in that case they changed the mistakes in their listing for Frank English apparently in response to our discussion at AFD - it originally gave the name as Francis English and a death-date of 1984, they changed this to 1998 after the AFD and added the name "Frank").

Their source for this could be word-of-mouth, emails from relatives, in-house newsletters and whatever. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Nothing in google news (noting he was from an older era) and 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it, then, to Austria at the 1952 Summer Olympics#Shooting - it would save a great deal of time if we could establish that redirection is the acceptable standard fallback for Olympians judged by the standards of the day not to be notable rather than having to argue every single one of them from scratch. ~~07:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)~~ Ingratis (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
per WP:ATD (adding policy reason). Ingratis (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have saved a great deal of time if Lugnuts didn't create 1000s of Olympic stubs. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to avoid the completely fatuous. Ingratis (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do I detect some admiration for Lugnuts? LibStar (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - "Completely fatuous" now reached. Ingratis (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We don't know that these "Olympians [were] judged by the standards of the day not to be notable" unless and until we have access to sources from the time, and from later in their life, to see how much coverage of them there was. They may not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, but may meet WP:GNG, so do we do need to consider each one individually. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but I obviously expressed myself very badly, as that is almost the opposite of what I was getting at! The point that I was trying clumsily to make, such as it was, was that when Olympians are declared non-notable under NSPORTS2022 (= "standards of the day") there can be no sensible objection to redirecting them to a list, since there is always an appropriate list (or potential list), barring a couple of technical reasons (e.g., too many targets or too common a name). So I was wondering out loud whether in the case of a deletion there was some way to default to redirection (barring the standard exceptions) rather than someone having to follow every nomination individually to suggest it under WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Safaei

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

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

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

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[52]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why would we get rid of this sourced tournament just because they didn't write up 1000 sources like they do today? Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are countless non-notable sporting events every day, and long-established consensus is that we only should have articles on the ones where there are indepth secondary sources? If they didn't write up these sources then, and no one has done since then, then it isn't notable. Fram (talk) 09:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Rights Arts Movement

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

Fails WP:NORG. None of the sources are WP:SIGCOV. GTrang (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've had this on my list to do a WP:BEFORE but haven't had time yet, but I trust the nominator has, and I agree with the assessment of the sources currently in the article. Only the Brooklyn Rail piece clears the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. The rest of the coverage consists of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or affiliated coverage. (See the talk page for my view on why the AustLit source is defective in this regard.) All told, I don't see an WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and New York. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancy name, but not one hit in google news or google books (This is quite rare for something from an English speaking country). Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Before I commence, I should declare an interest, in that I am the Editor who created the WP article in question. By way of overview, I believe the argument for deletion is based upon some unfounded assumptions, and I will elaborate. Before doing so, however, just a brief comment on the posting by Libstar. I mention in passing that I don't believe there's any requirement that a WP article has hits thru Google News or Google Books. That said, if one searches on both Google News and Google Books there are in fact numerous hits for the International Human Rights Arts Festival, which was the name for the IHRAM until recently. Now to the comment by Dclemens1971. He/she usefully notes that the Brooklyn Rail reference is significant. Agreed. I don’t agree, however, with his/her assessment that all the other references are trivial or incidental, and in particular I don't think that his/her that his assessment of the Austlit reference stands up to closer scrutiny. For instance, he/she rightly focusses on two issues with the Austlit reference, namely, significance, sometimes called substance, and independence. It is useful to look closely at both of these, under the under Notability (organizations and companies) Guideline WP:ORG. 1. Regarding significance/substance, the above Guideline suggests that the mention of the organization or company cannot be trivial or incidental. A number of examples are given. Conversely, the Guidelines gives examples of a substantial mention of the organization or company. The listing of examples in the Guideline is not exhaustive, and includes, as examples, a passage in a book or an encyclopedia article. I think the Austlit entry can be reasonably considered an electronic equivalent to both of these, and thus does qualify as being significant/substantial. I don’t think the Austlit entry could reasonably be described as trivial or incidental, especially when one looks at the reputation of Austlit. 2. Regarding independence, the Wikipedia article for Austlit itself explains that this is an ongoing Australian research project, jointly funded by Australian universities and the Australian Research Council. There is no connection whatsoever between the International Human Rights Arts Movement (IHRAM), which is based in the USA, and Austlit, which is currently based with the University of Queensland, Australia. Further, the wording used in the Austlit entry isn’t actually found on the IHRAM website. It is true that Austlit entry does provide a link to the IHRAM website, but if one looks in general at other Wikipedia articles on organizations, such links are common - it doesn’t necessarily mean there is some organizational relationship. There are thus at least two reliable and significant sources for the WP article in question. As the alleged of lack of such sources is the basis of the argument for deletion, I believe it follows that the article should in fact be kept. Research17 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Austlit source is a single paragraph that says this: 'The International Human Rights Arts Movement is an international organizetion based in New York, which aims, through the arts, to highlight human rights issues. The IHRAM curates the annual International Human Rights Arts Festival, which includes the Art of Unity Creative Awards. The Awards garner wide participation, including from Europe, Africa, the Indo-Pacific (including Australia), and the Americas.' Source: https://humanrightsartmovement.org/ That's not WP:SIGCOV, and it's basically saying it got the information from IHRAM's website. I do not understand why you are making such an effort to defend this single paragraph as a GNG-qualifying source instead of trying to bring more sources to the table -- unless such sources do not exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Your suggestion about checking for more sources is a fair one and I'll get back to you on that. In the meantime, however, just a point of clarification: in your estimation is Austlit a reliable source? Research17 (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, I suppose, but every source has to be evaluated on all four dimensions and in this case it appears to fail the test of secondary, independent and significant coverage, so its reliability is a red herring. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Just a brief update. I'm not sure that Austlit does actually fail when you look closely. But we may not need to discuss this. In response to the suggestion above to "bring more sources to the table", I've located two further sources and now added these to the article. The first is from a chapter in the recently published Routledge book Democracy as Creative Practice, by artist Alika Hope and arts professor Penny Brandt. As Editors would be aware, Routledge is a respected scholarly publisher. I've also added a reference to the website Stage Buddy. This has less obvious credentials, but on the other hand it is cited as a source in peer-reviewed scholarship. Look forward to hearing what others think. BTW, yes, I will need to tidy up the referencing somewhat. Research17 (talk) 11:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to added sources. I don't think any of these work. The Routledge book appears to have a single mention of IHRAF on page 151. And StageBuddy does not appear at all to be an independent source; it appears to be a promotional event listing for IHRAM-related activity. I'm still on "delete". Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gale, Indiana

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

I can only guess how the GNIS folks came up with this one. This got back-entered onto the maps after "Board decisions referenced after Phase I data compilation or staff researched non-controversial names." What seems to have happened in practice is that they conflated a housing development from the 1970s-'80s with the post office that shut down some seventy years earlier. The county history doesn't mention it and there's nothing there in earlier maps and aerials. There's no particular reason to believe that they have the location correct, and it seems unlikely that the development was named after the post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information found, and the post office does not count toward notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker's Hoosier placenames book on page 141 says that this is a post office. It's there long enough to have made it into the 1895 Lippincott's, but it's not there amongst the Gales on page 1237, contraindicating any sort of settlement. This close to Indianapolis, the Bodenhamer and Barrows Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (IUP, 1994) seems worth a try, but that yields nothing.
However the Arcadia Publishing book on Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970) has Gale on page 114 and says that there was also a blacksmith, hardware store, and the original site (until 1961) of the Bartlett Chapel Church. So that's one source that's more than a post office directory entry. Another is the Hendricks County, Interim Report of 1989 by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which on page 36 describes Gale in the past tense as a "village" that had "a general store, blacksmith shop, and a Methodist church". So this is a documented, albeit barely, historical village, now extinct.
Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmmm... I don't suppose any of these gives us enough information to confirm the location? Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Arcadia publishing book has a drawing of the old church building, but no map. It does say that Hardscrabble, where Bartlett Chapel Church now is, is "a few miles east" of where Gale was; and that the original chapel building was re-used by the golf course. Both the current chapel and the golf course are on modern maps, so the location in the article at hand seems reasonable. The Hendricks County, Interim Report has a map (alas! too blurry to read on-screen) and outright says in words "Gale, located east of Danville at U.S. 36 and County Road 300 E, had […]" which again supports this article's coördinates. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Center Township, Hendricks County, Indiana and update that page to list it as a "former settlement". I think the sources found by Uncle G are enough to support a redirect. A separate article is only warranted if it has accurate details supported by reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Collins

AfDs for this article:

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

This person may or may not have significant coverage verified by reliable sources. Nonetheless, being eliminated early in The Traitors (American TV series) season 3 and appearing in Survivor a few times doesn't make him more than known for just winning Survivor once. (I don't think his Price Is Right appearance improves much, does it?) Per WP:GNG, primary sources don't count as verification of this person's notabillity. This EW interview and Men's Journal interview (posing as an article in prose format) or this "article" featuring full quotes by the article subject are primary sources. So is this NBC article. This CBS article briefly mentions him as winner of Cambodia season.

When I nominated this article for the first time, I proposed numerous suggestions, which may have led to "no consensus" result. This time, I would definitely like this article to be redirected to Survivor: Cambodia. The alternative targets List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants and Survivor: San Juan Del Sur (his debut season) are nice, but his status as the Cambodia winner is IMO stronger than his other TV appearances. Even an article about a returnee was redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water per another AFD discussion.

If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NBASIC, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? (Failing NBASIC but meeting WP:NACTOR still doesn't make him an exception, IMO.) George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, American football, and Massachusetts. George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to match all 3 critiera of WP:BLP1E for it to apply he does not even meet the first 2 so you can't really apply that further more the "article that got redirected" while it did happen it was the result of a afd that wasn't attended by a single editor so it's a poor comparison yes his Survivor tenure is the most notable part but he is know for being in 2 seasons furthmore until very recently every Survivor winner had a page so this goes against precedence as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he won once but the show he won and was Fetruared on multiple times is also one of the most watched shows in the world has lasted more then 40 seasons and has spawned multiple spin offs across the globe im not sure how that cant possibly NOT make him notable it seems like the nominater while good intentiond has severley ignored the impact and popularity of the show Wwew345t (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominaters argument seems to be =wining Survivor =not notable while simultaneously ignoring that survivor is one of the most watched shows in the world the sources cover the article plenty Wwew345t (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the article needs is extra sources Wwew345t (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://decider.com/2025/01/19/jeremy-collins-the-traitors/ shows that his Traitors appearance also got coverage Wwew345t (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you basing his notability on the show's own popularity? WP:INHERENT (essay) suggests we avoid one's notability based on another's. Decider.com is part of New York Post, which is considered "generally unreliable" per WP:NYPOST. WP:DECIDER somehow considers Decider.com marginally reliable but cautions using it.

Reading it, the "article" in disguise is just an interview, meaning I have to treat the source as a primary source, which still doesn't verify his notability.

What about other rules I provided if you still think BLP1E doesn't apply? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument of WP:INHERENT would be more effective if he was some random contestant who got out early but he wasnt he pplayed 3 times all 3 times he made it to rhe merge section of the game this qualifes him for [[WP:NACTOR]] that was why I brought up the show Wwew345t (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://entertainmentnow.com/news/jeremy-collins-survivor/ is a source and https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/survivor-winners-through-the-years-where-are-they-now/ mentions not only his Survivor appearances but also his traitors appearance this https://thedirect.com/article/the-traitors-season-3-us-cast-contestants-peacock-photos-bios mentions his appearance on the traitors while also going a little bit in detail of what he did in his 3rd Survivor season I'll post some more links later but there's clearly substantial coverage establishing notabillity Wwew345t (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.monstersandcritics.com/tv/reality-tv/who-is-jeremy-collins-from-the-traitors-us-3-cast/ also describes his appearances on survivor and even brings up the fact that he was notable enough to be voted into the season he eventually won https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2025/01/09/traitors-season-3-will-jeremy-collins-be-a-traitor/77572114007/ while I admittedly am not sure if this counts as primary or secondary since it mentions a old interview he did this also covers his traitors appearance and why he was casted .Wwew345t (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 4 non primary sources and i could probably find more sufficient to say this article like many othet winner articles that shouldnt have been deleted passes BASIC and GNG Wwew345t (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Entertainment Now website belongs to Heavy Inc., which aggregates news from other sources, like social media ones. This source takes info from Twitter (now called "X.com") and Instagram and interviews disguised as "articles". I'd caution using the source per WP:HEAVY.COM if I were you. Same for Us Weekly (WP:RSP#Us Weekly).

The Direct article was just previewing cast (including him) and the third season. Unconvinced that it's the indicator of this person's notability, despite brief description of his Survivor gameplay. Also unconvinced that Monsters and Critics is highly reputable (past RSN discussion). Wicked Local source republishes a USA Today "article" that primarily advertises (or hypes up) Collins's Traitor appearance, despite detailing his profile. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The monters and critcs discussion is severely outdated it was almost 13 years ago Wwew345t (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your dismissing the wicked article for "hyping up his traitors appearance" despite you making a claim that there were no sources that covered it Wwew345t (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? The wicked local article is a secondary source and is primarily about the tratiors apprerance Wwew345t (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The USA Today article doesn't mention his elimination from The Traitors. This "article" resembles a pre-premiere press release, IMO.

Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? How about "primarily" instead? Also, I don't mind other reliable sources verifying his notability, but we still have to be cautious about how sources cover him. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the sources willb primarily cover the win as that is his most notable accivemnt however he wouldn't have been casted in said season at all if his first appearance wasnt notable at all i mean the season was "second chance" then his win had to have been notable ennoigh to have him invited again to another season they dont iust let anyone come back and then he would have had to have been a notable enough survivor player to have been invited to the traitors youll note that most other survivor players who have shown up for the traitors also have pages even if they didnt win a season of survivor (like cirie fields) basically what i mean is you dont come back multiple times including in a all winners season if you werent already a notable player Wwew345t (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He wasnt just some guy who showd up in one season got out and thats it he played 3 times never finishing below 10th Wwew345t (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seem to recall, over dozens of AfDs about reality shows, that winners of major reality shows are presumed to be notable. Then the burden shifts to the side to prove that significant coverage doesn't exist. I also recall that the burden is on those who claim BLP1E. With all the sources and appearances in three seasons of the prototype of reality shows, I think the burdens of proof that he's not notable hasn't been met. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the burdens of proof that he's not notable hasn't been met. I thought I sufficiently proved he's notable only for winning just Cambodia, despite appearing in other Survivor seasons and The Traitors. (Compare him to another [non-notable?] returnee who appeared in just [four seasons of] Survivor, only one of which he won there.) If disqualifying interviews, like the one summarizing an interview video, if insufficient to prove his lack of notability, then how else shall I prove that he fails GNG and NBASIC? George Ho (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is his notability comes from tv not news articles and that is rhe main issue with people assuming reality TV people aren't notable that's just not the case the coverage is there the sources are there Wwew345t (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant Coverage confirming his notability Wwew345t (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not just news articles, then how about books and scholarly journals? This book is quoting the article subject; not an indicator of notability, IMO. This almanac is merely listing him as a Survivor winner. This novel refers to some fictional character of the same name, so it doesn't count. Couldn't find magazines significantly covering him without interviewing him besides People, which barely, if not never, covers his Winners at War appearance or his debut season. Couldn't find scholarly journals significantly about him either. News articles are primarily what we got.

the problem is his notability comes from tv not news articles What you said may contradict WP:GNG, like "independent of the subject" criterion, and possibly WP:NBASIC. "TV" is associated with this person who appeared on TV. The TV shows themselves that he appeared in cannot be used to verify his notability if we're gonna apply GNG and NBASIC here. Reliable secondary sources, like news articles from reputable sources, are the ones we can use instead. George Ho (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Independence of the subject applies to personal websites and advertisements is jermey collins a survivor producer writor or director? Wwew345t (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument contradicts NACTOR as well as it states that "a character that has a significant role in multipe shows and/or movies are considered notable" he played a major part in 3 different seasons of Survivor and made it far all 3 times Survivor seasons are the same show but with a different cast each season its differnt enough to be considered unique you say he is only notable for his cambodia win but he wouldnt have been on there to begin with had his San juan del sur game not have been notable enough to make him return on top of that he returned a 3rd time this time to a all winners season and on top of that he was invited to play on the traitors which usally tries to cast NOTABLE realty show competitors. Notability is firmly established in these appearances and the sources used in the article Wwew345t (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note (and this has nothing to do with my argument above) i struggle to see how you could say a multi time returnee and a winner who has been on other reality shows because of his notability from said show cant be notable when you created Helen Glover (Survivor contestant) a non notable contest who played once on a season generally regarded as one of the worst ever? Wwew345t (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't meet the BLP1E standerds he passes NACTOR and he has sig cov from high profile news sources moerver you dont seem to grasp the concept that has been reiterated by me and any keep voters in any afd you make he's a winner of a major reailty show and your questioning how that can be notable based on your opinion and a couple technicalities we shouldnt be re directing pages on notable subjects because of technicalities Wwew345t (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent of the subject" means disqualifying the person himself, his wife, people associated with Survivor (I hope), CBS (yes, CBS), and others associated with him. WP:NBASIC also mentions "independent of the subject".

Helen Glover (Survivor contestant) a non notable contest who played once on a season generally regarded as one of the worst ever She is considered notable for other things besides appearing in that season. The article was approved into mainspace via WP:AfC process. If you disagree, how about (instructions from) WP:AFD or enabling WP:Twinkle? George Ho (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collins can't just appear in those shows. His roles must be "significant" in order to meet WP:NACTOR. So far, I've yet to see him contribute "significant[ly]" to either Winners at War or his debut season... or The Traitors, and being eliminated from both of them seasons and the other show to me may not be sufficiently "significant" without (to me) proof from reliable secondary sources. Unsure about his The Price Is Right appearance, but even winning prizes at a game show (to me) is neither "unique" nor "prolific" nor "innovative" to the entertainment field. George Ho (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He made it to the merge phase in all 3 of his seasons and contributed to the overall strategy of all 3 that's significant mauve not to you but it is to alot of people Wwew345t (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think youve really seen the show at all or youd know his contributions to it are prolific i suggest watching the show before you put another survivor winner page before you put it into afd with the assumption that people' wont identify just how opinionated your argument is Wwew345t (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i suggest watching the show before you put another survivor winner page before you put it into afd with the assumption that people' wont identify just how opinionated your argument is. You know what? We're going back and forth without compromises. I was gonna comment about general readers unable to afford access to the series, but that won't change your mind much, would it, despite trying to get into their shoes? Let's await more of others then, shan't we? George Ho (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could definitely benefit from more citation, but there is no shortage of published articles about him to source because he is notable. 00:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuchitown (talk • contribs)
Delete I'm surprised by this so far - the sources in the article aren't secondary! There are five currently in the article - one is an interview with him (People, PRIMARY), another is an interview (EW, PRIMARY), two more announce the birth of his child and interviews him (PRIMARY), and one is his own instagram. A BEFORE search of him brings up only interviews - the one source where I found other people talking about him did not appear reliable. This fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One keep !vote so far says this isn't a BLP1E, which may be true, but it still does not pass GNG. Another claims that a SNG is met, but I'm not sure which one that is, and the final keep !vote mentions that just because there are published articles do not mean they satisfy GNG. I don't care if this is kept as long as properly secondary sources can be identified. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yilmaz Bektaş

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cyprus, Turkey, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth ALGOL 30

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find sources to establish notability. Since the person who dePRODed this did not make sourcing improvements and wrongly claimed that existing sources were sufficient, I’ll spell it out here. All of the sources are either primary (from Dartmouth College) or do not discuss Dartmouth ALGOL 30 specifically. The sources that are not from Dartmouth discuss various aspects of the broader topic of ALGOL, but they do not even mention this specific implementation. If you are voting Keep, please provide multiple sources that establish notability with quotations from source material that demonstrates significant coverage, per WP:SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Zahir (Konar Education Minister)

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

Nominated for PROD, but PROD reverted with comment "As a cabinet-level official of a province, he is automatically notable, even without multiple in-depth references". The one reference is a passing mention. Article has been substandard since 2009. Blackballnz (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 07:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Improper nomination. As a cabinet-level official of a province, he is automatically notable, even without multiple in-depth references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject spectacularly fails WP:GNG. The fact that he served as minister in an Afghani province does not count as evidence of notability. See here. -The Gnome (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Islands Universities Consortium

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

Per WP:Verifiability, all content on Wikpedia needs to verifiable. The only source that this article uses is no longer accessible. I cannot find any source about this Consortium's existence that doesn't just copy the Wikipedia article. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jersey-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nat Christian: Very limited is there. can redirect Monhiroe (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! What does this guy have to with the Channel Islands? I assume you posted in the wrong thread. Aŭstriano (talk) 05:54, 29 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) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Monhiroe, you're going to have to elaborate on any relationship between the article that is nominated and your suggested Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything with even a whiff of notability. Suspect the redirect !vote above was an accidental mistake and can be ignored. JMWt (talk) 07:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Brad Matetsky

AfDs for this article:

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

I know this subject has survived a previous AfD, but the last one was six years ago and I think the project has leaned a bit more deletionist over time in regards to BLPs. This is something I've run into a few times myself in a Wikipedia-related context (I nominated myself for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Clover and I have written an article about a different Wikipedian since then that I actually think meets our current notability requirements). I think Matetsky's biography is a lot like mine... in that we're not really notable. I took a look at the cited references and the closest any of them gets to WP:GNG is the Princeton one here. My short-lived biography also only had one SIGCOV reference at the time. Everything else is a passing mention. I did my own before and did not find any other sources with more significant coverage (they were just more passing mentions). Deletion might not be the only answer here, a partial merge to the article about ArbCom might make sense, with the subject's name as a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and Internet. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well, if the nom is about making comparisons to other articles (which I don't "think" we normally do) I've seen far fewer references in other articles that have been kept... - jc37 10:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: Look at the quality of the references. Most literally just list his name and are directory-like entries on websites. I've definitely seen people compare articles/AfDs in an AfD before to show precedent and differences in regards to level of secondary coverage. I'm going to try and keep my commenting at a minimum here but I hope that people try to distance themselves from the Wikipedia aspect and just see this as a normal biography. Is there enough coverage for a standalone biography? I don't think so. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I disagree with your "hand wave" assessment of the page's sources.

That said, "standalone" biography? Are you intimating that you want to see this listified somewhere? - jc37 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I ask you to give me three sources that demonstrate GNG coverage. As for standalone biography, I did mention the possibility of a partial merge (and then redirect) to ArbCom. The passing mentions of this subject are usually in that context. Kind of like how my name is a redirect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. And I see that you adjusted that redirect [53].

I think there's more to this article than merely his Wikipedia work, notable as it may be.

Anyway, I really am trying to AGF here, but from what others have noted below, and from the seeming tone of your comments, this is starting to feel like "sour grapes" here.

I think I'll wait to see what other commenters have to say. - jc37 16:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referencing that redirect, but the discussion about a standalone article. I'll maintain that this AfD is WP:NOTPOINTY (I'd say everything about that section applies here), but I'm open to other people's perspectives. I started this AfD because I had genuine concerns about notability. I'll note that the previous AfD closed as "no consensus" so it's not like I'm the first person to have this opinion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do realize that the timing was probably a dumb decision on my part but it really wasn't intended in any malicious kind of way. I was working on List of Wikipedia people lately. I've been considering the notability of other articles and whether other Wikipedians are notable in their own right. I try really hard not to be a hypocrite and apply consistent standards across the board. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for anyone new to the discussion that I opened this before one of the articles I mention above was nominated for deletion. But I stand by what I said, in that this article really doesn't meet GNG. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feels a tad bit pointy based on her creation of Tamzin being tagged for notability. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not meant to be pointy, someone mentioned the AfD on the talk page for that article and I think they had a point about notability. I genuinely believe this article isn't notable. The depth of coverage here is even less than that article, which was deleted, so I think that argument holds even more weight. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC), edited 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I 100% believe you're acting in good faith here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the whole I find the way redditors are covered compared to Wikipedians disappointing (I think they get more/better press). So I wish someone like Matetsky was notable for his immense contributions to Wikipedia. However, the coverage he has received does not pass notability. None of the sources really offers any indepth biographical coverage of Matetsky. Instead we get passing coverage of him talking about ArbCom, which any number of Wikipedians including myself have, some press coverage of some cases he's been a part of as a lawyer (all lacking WP:SIGCOV of Matetsky as a topic) and various "things on the internet he's done". If this were some 19th Century person I could maybe understand why we would stretch our policies and guidelines to include. But this is a BLP where we shouldn't be stretching things and I do not think he meets our standards for notability and so the right thing would be to delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say "things done on the internet" like it's a bad thing - welcome to the 21st century : )

Anyway, I think you left out book and magazine editor as well... - jc37 17:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No the "journal" is "things done on the internet". This is not some major journal of note or notability and isn't widely indexed. And truthfully that's how I considered the Baker Street publication but if you want to call it a book that's fine. It's a self published one that also id not notable nor convey notability under WP:NBOOK (the SNG I personally work with the most) Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Press is self-publishing? - jc37 21:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you're getting Mysterious Press from, but both the Baker Street Almanac and the Greenbag Almanac are published by Greenbag.org, which may not necessarily be self-published, but is a minuscule press, and its publications are unlikely to come close to WP:NBOOK. Contributing to an almanac (or being on its editorial or advisory board) isn't usually considered notable unless the almanac itself is considered notable. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks jc37 and Risker. The danger of trying to get a comment out quickly rather than giving it the time it deserved. I should have written "It's published by a micro poss that is also not one that conveys notability under WP:NBOOK..." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, let me clarify: I "found" Mysterious Press by looking at the page's references. Here's the link to the company's page: [54]. Here's a link describing them by their current owner: [55] - Mysterious Press was founded in 1975, and was sold to Warner Books in 1989. And here the "about" page for the current parent company: [56]]. I hope this helps. Happy reading : ) - jc37 15:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I can't open any of the links to Mysterious Press, my security system says it's a corrupted website; and its current owner, Penzler Press, doesn't include the book in its catalogue (nor NYB as one of its authors, but as an editor he probably wouldn't be). Is editing a non-notable compilation a criterion for notability? Risker (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barnes and Noble showing it for sale: [57]. (tried to add Amazon link, but it wouldn't save) - jc37 21:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Is the book notable? Are there multiple reviews of it, by reputable sources? Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. There are almost no circumstances in which I would consider a Wikipedia editor to be notable, unless they already met notability standards in whatever they do outside of Wikipedia; editing Wikipedia, receiving a Wikipedia/Wikimedia award, being on an Arbcom, or even being quoted in a journalistic article about Wikipedia/Wikimedia does not and should not cross the notability threshold. Risker (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to expand here, because I do not see how we would consider Ira Brad Matetsky a notable author/editor; neither the works he has published/edited/written nor the journals/almanacs/books he has worked on meet our notability thresholds. I have absolutely no doubt that he is an excellent and highly professional lawyer; nonetheless, his work in this field would not meet our notability thresholds. And I think that it is actually a little bit insulting to the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians, including many who have been more productive, and have produced more work that has been read by more people than all of the Arbcom pages put together, to suggest that Newyorkbrad is a lynchpin of the project. I say this as someone who has worked closely with NYB, knows him personally as Ira Brad and has enjoyed the pleasure of his company on several occasions, and holds him in the highest personal regard. He is a really good person, and he's done good work here. But none of this makes him notable, and we wouldn't even be having this discussion if he wasn't a popular and well-respected colleague of ours; that article would have been delete years ago. We really do need to stop this navel-gazing. Risker (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to some kind of list or meta-article about Wikipedians/Arbcom. Andre🚐 00:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per jc37. Serial (speculates here) 15:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Changed from: "Keep per WP:CREATIVE because, due to his extensive ArbCom tenure covering the relatively early years of Wikipedia and extending into more mature years, which has received a fair amount of coverage, and he was the longest-serving member, and he participated in at least one notable case ("notable" meaning: a case about which there is an article—Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia), and having played a significant role in a notable event on Wikipedia—the discovery of the Jar'Edo Wens hoax (he deleted the hoax), he has played a sufficiently significant role in co-creating the significant and well-known collective work which is Wikipedia (and Wikipedia has been the primary subject of multiple etcetera etcetera) for that role to be considered major and for this article to have some encyclopedic worth. To add: It's possible to write the article, and the article speaks for itself."—Alalch E. 22:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After thinking a bit more about it, I'm switching to delete, as I no longer believe that it's possible to write a reasonable article. While there are corporate biographies, we can't rely on them to the degree needed to flesh out the legal career portion of the article, and mentioning just one case is unsatisfactory.—Alalch E. 09:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith... starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:34, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was VERY polite. For you, this: this is a bad faith nomination in the wake of the Tamzin deletion, in my estimation. The end. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carrite, this AfD started 17 hours before Tamzin's AfD started. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone here. I'll remind folks that the initiator of this AfD had a BLP written about her which she herself put up for AfD as she doesn't think she's notable enough for an article, so notability of individual Wikipedians is definitely something to which she has given some serious thought. People can disagree with her assessment, and that's entirely fair. At the same time, Carrite, at the previous AfD for this article, you voted to delete. Could you help us to understand in what way the article has been improved sufficient for you to decide it should be kept this time? I'm not trying to be pointy here, but I think you're only person who's participated in both AfDs, so understanding your change in position may be important for other participants. Risker (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see how this article meets notability requirements. As per Risker, Delete the article, keep Newyorkbrad. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the article subject, I am neutral, but have posted some thoughts here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarize NYB's salient points here because they feel worth being considered when weighting consensus:
- He is, as he writes above, neutral about whether he should have an article
- He notes that he has an article because of his ArbCom work and notes the ways that the sources inadequately source the fact that he is the longest serving Arb and how it now only says this as of 2018 because that's what the WSJ said.
- The article gives little coverage to his work as a litigator and suggests his career can be summarized by having lost one case over a long career
- Notes issues with the 2016 "as of" description of involvement in a literary society
- Fails to include his newest Sherlock book (even while claiming it would bore many people)
- Concludes with knowledge that his article isn't likely to be vandalized but other similarly notable, or non-notable, BLP may not be so lucky.
I think I'm fairly summarizing what he wrote there and for me the top line statement that he is claiming to be neutral as an article subject gives rise to a lot of actual concerns as an article subject about the article, which maybe aren't collectively best addressed at an AfD, but do (I feel) deserve weight and consideration when assessing the consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG: the sources either contain no significant coverage of the subject or are not independent of him. I join with the others above in saying that deletion would not be a reflection of Newyorkbrad as a member of our online community. arcticocean ■ 19:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep per jc37 and Alalch E.~~ --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Delete. Really falls on the edge and looking at it over again, I can't say for certain that this subject is notable per our standards. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 00:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like Newyorkbrad, and think he has been an outstanding arb (if not the best) for his work ethic, logic, cogent writing, and perhaps most importantly, empathy. If having a BLP were a reward for being an outstanding Wikipedian, he would absolutely deserve it. But it’s kind of the opposite, isn’t it? Please, please, please read the thoughts he lays out at User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#Thoughts from an AfD subject to understand the problems with piecing together a biographical article about someone about whom no proper biography has been written in reliable sources. You get woefully incomplete and outdated scraps of information that do not cohere into a proper, comprehensive narrative about the man’s life and career. He deserves better than that. If and when there are reliable sources that are sufficient to form a better, more complete picture than is available now, then it would make sense to consider a BLP. But — going solely by the sources — we’re not there yet. 28bytes (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the excellent reasons NYB provided in his "blog". Marginally ~~notable~~ NOTEable people with very little actual public info available should not have articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to relisting below, I really do not think it should be a redirect to any target. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For borderline BLPs, consider what the subject prefers. In this case he seems to favor deletion. Jehochman ^Talk 04:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does he favour it? He has said I am staying neutral on whether the article should be kept or deleted which is very difficult to interpret other than as declining to take a position… arcticocean ■ 09:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With BLPs we should take the most cautious approach. He’s formally neutral but Ira’s comments read like a delete argument. Jehochman ^Talk 16:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your interest in my opinion. I did not mean to express a preference for keeping or deletion, but I can see why my comments might be read as doing so; ~~I'll post a few words of clarification there this afternoon~~ I've posted a few more thoughts, though I don't know that they'll help anyone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviewing the sources in the article, I think they probably are enough to meet the GNG. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I might get flack for this relisting but I noted in their nomination statement that the nominator suggested a Redirect or Merge to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) or, on the other hand, List of Wikipedia people. I'm a big believer in ATD so I am hoping that participants might consider these options along with Delete/Keep choices. This AFD discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've looked at several articles in Category:Wikipedia people, and this seems better referenced than several of those. Are we comparing what jobs people do outside of Wikipedia and saying that one job is better - more notable - than another? Anyway, Iff no consensus to keep, I suggest "Draftify". Several above (including NYB's comments) have suggested that it might be develop-able. And in the meantime, regardless of outcome here, it wouldn't be a bad idea to copy anything relevant to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) and List of Wikipedia people. I wonder if NYB would like to be added to Wikipedia:Facebook directory? - jc37 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled al-Ayoubi

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

Article lacks notability. Only citation is a passing mention; found no WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. Was prod July 30, 2012, two days after created. Fails WP:GNG. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, Ambassadors are not considered presumptively notable. The article has only one reference, and (WP:NEXIST!) I can't find any coverage in reliable sources focusing on the individual himself; only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that verify he was, indeed, an ambassador. No significant coverage of his involvement in any major diplomatic event, either, nor his involvement in crafting any important treaty or bilateral agreement — two criteria which WP:DIPLOMAT says may suggest notability. A minor, non-notable figure who doesn't merit an article. --AgusTates (talk) 01:57, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Syria, and England. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 02:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I offer no opinion on the merits of the article itself, but I did want to note that despite the nominator's claim, I didn't notice anything in the article history to indicate this was ever tagged for PROD at any point (and the date claimed for that, supposedly two days after created, was in fact the creation date of the article). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He may meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC - as well as the 2019 source which is in the article as an External Reference, a quick search of Newspapers.com shows international coverage of his defection in 2012 (which is what he did - not mentioned in the article), and an article in 2013. I'll add some sources and info and come back. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. He received lots of news coverage from 2012 through 2021, easily meeting WP:SIGCOV and preemptively disproving WP:BLP1E. He's notable as a defector, not as a diplomat. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:BLP1E - I don't know how that's been disproved here. The "lots of news coverage" link does not work for me, and my own BEFORE search only brings up a small number of hits, all around the time of the event he's known for, except for the Barnsley retrospective, which really isn't enough for a BLP. We could redirect to "list of Syrian defectors." SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Just noting that the nominator is a brand new account whose first edits were sending articles to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper bylines. 190.219.102.29 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV says nothing about "proper bylines", but nevertheless, I have added references from reliable sources with bylines. I don't believe that he is covered by WP:BLP1E - WP:NOTBLP1E says that "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of the three criteria is met ". Criterion 3 is: "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." The significance of al-Ayoubi resigning and speaking out against the Assad regime is shown not just by the coverage at the time (very well documented), but its inclusion in a 2019 book as a critical point when a member of the regime spoke out against it. I have added sources and information, including biographical info. I believe he meets WP:GNG. (I'd also note that the previous !vote is from an IP address with only two edits, both Delete !votes on articles about Syrian diplomats.) RebeccaGreen (talk)

I was able to access the book from 2019, and he's only mentioned once in passing, literally just in one sentence. I don't think that gets us past BLP1E. All of the sourcing is just from that one event apart from retrospectives on the event from the place he now lives. SportingFlyer T·C 05:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review new sources added to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Winchester

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

I do not believe this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, England, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no significant roles in anything notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jotham Bradbury Sewall

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

Non-notable academician (fails WP:NACADEMIC). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Maine, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full biography in The New England Historical and Genealogical Register. Obituary 1. Obituary 2. Jfire (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the sources on the article.--User:Namiba 14:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Rives

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, Morocco, and France. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator's reasoning, the lack of WP:RS is especially concerning as it is also a BLP. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves^€500 13:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep: significant coverage in a reliable and independent media outlet, addressing the subject in depth and directly (3 articles) https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/jean-marc-rives-expose-a-leveil-normand_54969366.html https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/sur-murs-leveil-paysages-jean-marc-rives_9291390.html https://actu.fr/normandie/ferrieres-saint-hilaire_27239/eure-ce-peintre-international-sort-un-livre-pour-apprendre-a-dessiner_60960106.html + (not really independent nor in depth) https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id521597/article/2024-05-11/dedicace-de-jean-marc-rives-la-fabrique-de-la-risle-de-beaumont-le-roger A drastic cleanup is due, though. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 24 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!} 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.

Kind regards RJMarco (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.

Kind regards

RJMarco (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Tennet

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

This article doesn’t seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The only reference listed is IMDB. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER, only minor roles in notable productions, any major roles are in minor productions. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His role in Penny Black is significant. So is his role in Mega Time Squad that has no page yet, but has received A LOT of coverage mentioning him, see https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/fantasia-film-review-mega-time-squad-1202887372/ https://screenanarchy.com/2019/02/review-mega-time-squad-swiss-watch-crafted-silliness.html https://pophorror.com/just-in-time-our-review-of-tim-van-dammens-mega-time-squad-2018/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/02/quirky-sci-fi-farce-mega-time-squad-sends-up-all-those-time-travel-tropes/ etc etc His theater roles have also received coverage, example about one (2013) https://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/theatre-review-lord-of-the-flies-maidment-theatre/ZX2452KRAXA55XQSXKQDORPDJY/ https://www.metromag.co.nz/arts/arts-theatre/theatre-review-lord-of-the-flies -Mushy Yank. 16:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal (podcast)

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

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

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

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

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

British Furniture Confederation

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

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

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

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

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

Eva Vik

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

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

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

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

Kostas Kyriacou

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

To clarify upfront: This Kostas Kyriacou (Κώστας Κυριάκου) is not Konstantinos Kyriakou (Κωνσταντίνος Κυριακού), a candidate in the ongoing Greek presidential election who also goes by Kostas Kyriacou. You are much more likely to find hits about this Cypriot perennial candidate if you search up his nickname, Outopos (Ούτοπος).

From what I can tell, he was something of an early internet meme in Cyprus, hence this article's creation in 2008. However, neither of the two citations provided since have been reliable, and it seems to me that there is no in-depth coverage of him in reliable English- or Greek-language sources, just a couple old mentions on YouTube and two TV shows due to his conspiracy theories and quack proposals.

As he has never held political office nor done anything noteworthy of coverage by reliable sources, I don't see how he would pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. If there was an article for every person saying outlandish things who got a mention in local TV, we'd have hundreds of these articles. Yue💌 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Yue💌 05:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands this is completely unreferenced, but claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG, and the nominator is correct that the just two references that were previously in it weren't and aren't GNG builders either. To be fair, the attempted notability claim extends back to the 1990s, so it's possible that better GNG-worthy sourcing might have existed in the past that wouldn't Google well now — but we don't keep unsourced articles just because of speculation about the possibility that they might be improvable, only if somebody actually finds and shows evidence that they are improvable. And it's also not promising that an article about him doesn't seem to exist on the Greek-language Wikipedia, where a genuinely notable Cypriot-Greek figure would undoubtedly have been covered. So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually find archival evidence of GNG-worthy coverage that we're missing, but it can't be kept without referencing. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Connoisseur's Bakery

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:CORP. Nothing in google news. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is its website. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Northern Ireland. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no coverage at all (including in digitised newspapers). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already visited AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reptile (Mortal Kombat)

AfDs for this article:

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

Here's a weird one, but I do feel that this article fails notability, but I feel a need to explain why. While there are sources that discuss Reptile, reception from these sources fall into two categories: he was the first hidden character in a Mortal Kombat title, setting a tone for later games, and that he was featured in many games. A big problem in that regard then is repetition and what you can exactly say about a character, on par with the previous flood of "Top Ten Babes" reception that could be boiled down to "this character is sexy". Digging through books and Google Scholar presents similar: Reptile is mentioned primarily in the scope of his easter egg and no discussion of its impact beyond later secret characters in MK.

During the last AfD, four sources of SIGCOV were also presented, and I want address these here through a source analysis: Den of Geek, GamesRadar+, CBR, and Dualshockers. Of these, the first three are retellings of the character's plot progression: they don't offer reception on the character in a tangible sense, and are mainly useful as secondary sources. Past AfD discussions have shown this is not enough to hold up an article for notability, you need some actual reception from a reliable secondary source discussing their thoughts on the subject. Otherwise we'd have a lot more Pokemon flooding the site. Ultimately to boot these articles were done on most Mortal Kombat characters, and give no indication of particular importance beyond "they were in MK".

The last one, Dualshockers, does offer some reception, and there's a similar article discussing the Mortal Kombat 1 version of the character from the same source. The downside is they're both from the same font, and while I would count Dualshockers as viable, they're still Valnet which is a moment of pause for some.

So the Reader's Digest version of this is that fundamentally we have next to no real discussion for him, certainly not enough to hold up an entire article under current standards. Reptile's always been barely a character, and he can fit well into the list to explain his importance and help the reader grasp why he mattered in the scope of Mortal Kombat. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per nom. While I appreciate the very detailed explanation, the fact remains that retellings of the character's plot progression are transformative, making the listed sources secondary as properly assessed last time. The fact that 3 RS'es say essentially the same thing affects DUE, but not N. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Again though, the issue is that they are not saying something about the character, simply retelling the plot. Similar has been raised in the past (for example Valnet sources for Sword Art: Online characters, with the consensus being there that that wasn't enough to establish notability (nevermind the usual Valnet complaints).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources show this is notable enough for a standalone page and that was demonstrated more than clearly during the first AFD. -Mushy Yank. 17:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Girls

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

After a BEFORE on author Lee Welles, the book series (Gaia Girls), and the individual books in the series (Enter the Earth and Way of Water), I do not think this series meets NBOOK. I have searched for reviews through Google, Google Scholar, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, Kirkus Reviews, JSTOR, and ProQuest. I found one review on Kirkus (cited in the article) and potentially a review in Earth Action Network [58], but I don't have access to the article. Welles has passing mention in Digital Citizenship in Twenty-First-Century Young Adult Literature and an article in PW, but the first doesn't mention the books and neither provide SIGCOV. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment there are some OK news sources [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] but they are all very local which I am not sure is great for this kind of thing, especially since they call her "local author" and stuff. They're also not much in the way of commentary/reviews. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Found a couple of reviews: This is from Children's Bookwatch, but it's a bit short. The article from EAN mentioned by Significa should be accessible here and is a bit longer. There's also a review in Refrigerated & Frozen Foods Retailer, magazine of some sort, (here) for some reason, but I have no clue whether it's legitimate or not given that it seems a bit unusual. I wouldn't count the Kirkus Review though, since it's from their Indie reviews program. Regardless, I think there's barely enough coverage here, combined with the news sources above, to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 05:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yonsei-KOICA Master's Degree Program

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

We don't create articles on degrees programs as per WP:NOTGUIDE. If we did, there'd be 100s of 1000s articles on each degree program offered around the world. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Daneshgar

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

Highly promotional and of questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability, which are not backed up with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Prakash (educator)

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

The National Award seems given by a council, not the President and not enough for ANYBIO. There are no other assertions of notability nor indication otherwise he'd be notable Star Mississippi 03:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, and India. Star Mississippi 03:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - There are not enough secondary sources available to warrant him having his own article. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lonesome Suzie

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

Poorly referenced article about a song; fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE yielded nothing except passing mentions like [65] (that's one of the better ones - half a sentence...). If nobody can find anything else, maybe per WP:ATD-R, redirect this to the album it appears in, Music from Big Pink? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kitt, Indiana

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

All of the references are only relevant if one assumes that "Kit" and ":Kitt" are the same place; we have no souirces that asserts that. But even with that assumption, the only thing we have, besides a 4th class post office and passing references to locate other things, is its inclusion in a list of failed villages in the county history. Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going through Jay County, Indiana#Further reading:
The Lewis Biographical pp.474–475 has Kit as a post office run by one Henry F. West, with a grocery store there since 1884. The Bowen Biographical p.556 has Kit as a "town and postoffice" founded by Berkley G. Arthur and named after his dog. The Jay History v.1,p.247 has Kit as one of the "hamlets which still have kept their respective places on the map, though in some instances being little more than memories of the fond hopes entertained by their projectors". The Montgomery History has no Kit at all.
Just as icing on the cake: de Colange 1884, p. 535, "Kit" has
Kit, Ind., p.o., Jay co.
, 1889 Bullinger's Postal and Shipping Guide for the United States has Kit as a post-office on the Portland Railroad, a 1896 USPS directory has
Kit, Jay ………… Ind
, and no Lippincott's that I can find has any Kit at all.
And none of them have a Kitt, which is presumably some foolish BGN false regularization of the dog's and post-office's name.

“

I'm not a post office in Indiana, Michael. Only Kit was.

”

Given that this is a falsely named article that has false claims in its infobox and introduction and second section (which is original research attempting to square the article with the only proper source not saying anything about a Kitt), we might as well delete. The post offices and extinct hamlets of Jay County, per the only source cited for them being a history of Jay county that just gives a list of names, belong in Jay County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- de Colange, Leo (1884). The National Gazetteer: A geographical dictionary of the United States. London: Hamilton Adams & Company. LCCN 03009971. OCLC 4740756. (The National Gazetteer: A geographical dictionary of the United States at the Internet Archive)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay City, Indiana

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

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

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

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

TaskForceMajella

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

Topic does not appear to be notable. Fails WP:GNG --- cannot find sources about the research program that are independent of the program itself. — hike395 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — hike395 (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Software, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really do not know how to answer. The article cites tens of scientific articles which are spin-offs and has been one of the most important scientific JIP research projects on the topics ever conducted. Is it important to cite scientific articles that cite the project? These are available. Jpvandijk (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpvandijk We need sources that discuss the subject in some detail, not just cite it. Doug Weller talk 17:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpvandijk: To amplify what Doug Weller is saying: we need sources, independent of the project, that provide significant coverage about the project itself. Articles that cite articles that were produced by the project aren't the same thing. More specifically, you state that the project "has been one of the most important scientific JIP research projects on the topics ever conducted". If so, then it should be easy to find independent reliable sources that say something like this (rather than taking your word for it). I would recommend taking a minute to read WP:GNG. — hike395 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zero wait state

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

WP:DICTDEF, with unclear notability, unreferenced since 2009. Can this be fixed, or redirected (probably to Wait state, which is a bit longer, but also very poorly referenced...)? My BEFORE did not show anything useful - the term is used, but I am not seeing any WP:SIGCOV, or even a reliable definition. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It can be fixed, but I for one am too busy to. Steve Gibson wrote about this extensively over a period of at least 3 years from 1988 to 1991 in xyr Tech Talk column in Infoworld magazine. Uncle G (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the moment, Redirect. Uncle G is right, it could be fixed, but the current article is of no use whatsoever, and since the article on Wait states already discusses wastefulness and the desire to eliminate wait-states, the important concept of zero-wait-state can well be discussed there. The current zero wait state article is fundamentally misleading; memory doesn't necessarily have a "frequency", and the value that we assign to the frequency of a processor (e.g. 1GHz or whatever) doesn't fully specify how fast it collects data from memory. But I've nothing against recreation if someone wants to do the job properly in the future. Elemimele (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Raeside

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

Does not pass WP:JUDGE or NBASIC. She is a family court judge. GNG is not fulfilled, as all other sourcing that is not passing is WP:BLP1E, the Murder of Sara Sharif case. Could be merged or redirected there. Other than passing notice and the one event which she was criticized for, there is nothing really to say. No source goes in depth in her as a person. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and United Kingdom. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect — seconding per nominator. That said; In my opinion, there is notability, here, concerning the judge(s) and the original legal decision to shield their names, which was then reversed on-appeal. However, I agree with the nominator, that this is not a qualifier for an article proper. It should re-direct to the murder of Sara Sharif case. In-context, this issue is notable. Sans context, this is a fairly standard legal decision that is made regularly concerning a judge who’s position does not automatically confer notability per WP:JUDGE. Failing consensus on a merge/redirect, I would proffer a weak delete; My only hesitation is that this appears to be a somewhat ongoing topic, so I would hesitate to apply BLP1E. That said, articles can always be re-created, if-needed. MWFwiki (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as ATD for someone who lacks notability today but a potential search term, and to retain article history. The criticism from Vos MR is just weeks old, no clear ripple effects on her or her reputation, so it looks like BP1E. Because of the anonymity order I think her involvement in the case (or anything else particularly noteworthy about her) wouldn't have any reporting prior to a few weeks ago. Oblivy (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Kuhrt

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

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

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

Twin Flames (band)

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

Nominating for deletion on behalf of the article subject, requested by band member Chelsea Jodoin, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:GNG and WP:NMG. The article subject believes the band is nonnotable, which should not have an article on Wikipedia. See VRTS ticket # 2025020410000932. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 01:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I guess there's nothing more Canadian than a musical group that wins... at least three folk music awards and has a list longer than my arm of nominations, and still thinks they aren't notable. Sorry, FOUR awards. Seriously, we're screaming out the window how great Canada is lately and this group is an example of that. And the at least FIVE RS covering them. Oaktree b (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Their music was used by the UN as an example of indigenous representation [66] to highlight what can be done... Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b Well it's not so much we think this as the band members don't want there to be an article. Are they notable enough to override that, you think? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A four-time folk award winner implies notability, there's a ton of coverage in RS. Indigenous-Canadian representation is sadly lacking in Wikipedia, so this helps combat bias as well. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd say this passes WP:NMG with flying colours. There's an abundance of media coverage on the band, including from the CBC which has run multiple articles on them, and Saltwire. They have won multiple awards, and apparently they've also had some charted singles although I can't find the evidence for that part. Maybe someone else knows where to find chart data; if it's confirmed that they've held charted singles, I'd say that puts it in the bag for retaining the article. Kylemahar902 (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes wp:NMG easily Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 12:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ultimately the question of whether a band gets into Wikipedia or not isn't their own personal decision to make, it's our notability criteria's decision to make — and while there are certainly edge cases where the notability claim and its sourceability are weak enough that we could take the subject's personal wishes into account, this isn't one of them.
The Canadian Folk Music Awards are a clear pass of WP:NMUSIC #8, and the Native American Music Association Awards could potentially satisfy NMUSIC #8 as well (though I'll grant that they don't have an article yet by which I could tell whether they would or not); they have a substantial amount of GNG-worthy coverage that clearly passes NMUSIC #1 (which basically amounts to "passes GNG on their coverage"); they created the theme song for an important international event, passing NMUSIC #10; and they did get quite a bit of radio airplay a few years ago with a lovely indigenized cover of "Grace, Too" (I can't verify any specific chart positions for it anywhere either, but it would satisfy NMUSIC #11 regardless as it did get played on CBC Music.)
So I'm not too clear on what the non-notability argument would be here, because they absolutely pass our notability criteria — however, I note that the article has had content removed from it in the past year, both by anonymous IPs (who were almost certainly Chelsea) deeming some information as incorrect or irrelevant, and by established editors toning down advertorialism. So this is likely not so much "we really don't think we're notable enough for an article at all", and more "we want editorial control of it ourselves, and want it to not exist at all if we can't have that", but that latter isn't how things work around here. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the obvious reasons listed by everyone above, and perhaps ask Chelsea Jodoin why she wants her own successful band to be erased from Wikipedia. Whatever bugs her could be fixed during normal editing. I recall one other band where this has happened: The Red Paintings, an easily notable band in which the singer, then someone claiming to represent him, requested deletion with an argument about his privacy. See some bizarre discussions at that band's talk page. Someone with those concerns should consider the value of a WP article. I was not previously familiar with the music of Twin Flames, and now I might be interested in checking it out because of this article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Custance

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

Not sure if this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with her brother, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. As the only listed reference are IMDB and deadlinked blog, so fails WP:SIGCOV. Also, again as with her brother, the article contains info which suggests a potential COI from one or more contributors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no sources for this person, the one in the article is iffy. I don't see notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV JTZegers (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 17:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clue (information)

AfDs for this article:

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

The page doesn't cover anything that isn't already under evidence. All the page does is go over different ways a clue can be used. Pretty redundant if you ask me. GilaMonster536 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was a weak keep in the last AfD in 2024. I have no idea what I was thinking, but I was extremely stressed IRL. I'm still stressed but also blessed (insert joke emoji here). Seriously folks, this is what most laypersons and high school students think of as evidence or proof, or as hinting towards a solution, as opposed to the legal concept that "something that tends to prove a cause of action or criminal case." Both of these articles can exist in uneasy compromise. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to evidence per WP:OVERLAP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per above. JungleEntity (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect per above

— Cactus🌵 ^spiky ^ouch 00:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm no linguist but I'd say "Clue" and "Evidence" are distinct enough concepts and the page shouldn't be merged or redirected. A clue guides you to a conclusion, while evidence can be a clue or an indication of objective fact. We have evidence that the world is not flat for example, satellite photos of the Earth are not clues, they are evidence. I'm sure we could debate the semantics around that all day, and an English major could speak to that better than I can, but even the ambiguity alone might be enough for a keep.

I think this page just needs some love. Kylemahar902 (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to evidence. We don't need separate articles for every subtle shade of meaning, that's Wiktionary's job (WP:NOTDICT). It sounds like the distinction Kylemahar902 is describing is that a clue can be when the conclusion is still uncertain, while evidence can be either when the conclusion is uncertain or certain? I'm not sure that's even true (I don't think it's unidiomatic to say "A clue that the Earth is not flat lies in the movement of the stars") but even if it is, it's certainly not separate encyclopedic topics. SnowFire (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are various outcomes, but Merge to Evidence would be a very bad one. The evidence article is good, and already has to deal with important aspects of the philosophy of proof of a proposition, evidence in a legal context, evidence in science. These are important and related concepts that belong together. But they have nothing in common with crossword clues and literary context clues, which are also both definitely notable, and included in the current article. Personally I'm not sure whether it's better to retain the current article or split it to have separate articles on literary context clues and crossword clues (we already have Cryptic crossword). The disadvantage is what to do with the other odds and ends that fit into clue. Elemimele (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]