Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 05	January 07 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this article because I do not believe it meets notability guidelines.

Note that this article was previously deleted and then undeleted.

WP:EVENT - this content has no enduring historical significance. This does not have widespread national or international impact. This is arguably routine in the sense of shock news/water cooler stories/viral phenomena.
There are no lasting effects
The geographical scope is limited to Duke
The duration of coverage is limited to 2010 with one more article a few months later
There is one NYTimes article surveying the person in question but the focus is on the aftermath rather than the event in question or even the controversy in question
WP:NOTNEWS -
Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style."
In the original AFD, the author wrote

This is not an article about the faux thesis, it's an article about the controversy that the faux thesis generated.

However, after 10 years, I think it is fair to say that one of the responses to that is quite accurate

But most of the coverage was not commentary on the controversy (and "media discussion over routine privacy breaches" is also very routine and needs a fairly high standard to pass WP:NOT#NEWS. For example, is there evidence that any reliable sources have assessed this controversy within the field of "controversies over privacy" and concluding this is a significant one?). As a controversy, is this seen or will this be seen as a controversy of "enduring notability" (WP:NOT) that changed, shaped or defined the debate on privacy compared to a thousand other private communications that someone's friend posted to the world and went viral?

There are also WP:BLP considerations but I am more reluctant to specifically cite policy because this is not a biographical article. I invite others to do so if they are more confident on the matter. Transcendence (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sexuality and gender, Education, Internet, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, there's no indication there is lasting interest in this event, even at Duke. Campus controversies like this seem somewhat common at this point. I don't think it's even worth a mention at History of Duke University#Recent history: 1993–present, and it also seems undue weight to list at even Template:Duke University. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this has already been brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the matter is properly cited to multiple reliable sources, including indeed The New York Times, which has covered the matter more than once actually: the one in the article is from 2018, eight years after the 'thesis' went viral, so the concern about a brief news event is incorrect. The matter has been covered by numerous other newspapers and news sites so its notability is not in doubt. ~~I'll add~~I have added a few more sources and descriptions of reactions by The Daily Telegraph and The New York Times (including in later years) for good measure, but the article is already correctly sourced and summarizes the story clearly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources confirms this event's lasting notability. Add doi:10.1177/1045159514558412 and this to the list of sources. Esculenta (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added both of those, and came across yet more useful sources when I did so. One other point: the 2010 AfD only had sources from that year, so it was actually too early to tell if the matter had a wider effect. We now have five substantial sources from later years, in multiple disciplines, so we know that it did. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple reliable sources (and artistic responses) confirm notability. However, I agree with "deletes" it probably does not belong prominently in Duke University templates any longer: the coverage and artistic response does not seem to emphasize this as a notable event for Duke specifically but rather for the Internet and contemporary sexual patterns in general, as an epitome. It may make more sense to attach this page to general Internet events or sexuality templates rather than to the Duke template. RowanElder (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with user above who pointed out the event got reliable news coverage eight years after it happened, making it notable. XwycP3 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought this was a SNOW KEEP by now, as we have a) transformed the article with many new sources b) demonstrated multi-year notability and c) different editors have advanced sound reasons for keeping the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nom's WP:EVENT assertion - reliable sources were citing this faux thesis years after its publication. Also, as Chiswick Chap has noted, its notability is not in doubt.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Reywas92's reasoning. desmay (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aside from the possible BLP considerations (i see the person has apparently maintained a private life since and cannot be found via this article), alas this is plainly a notable event. Many news articles are still available on the event and I believe Wikipedia's rules mean we cover controversial events better on average.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources from 2010 through 2018 shows this was not a BLP1E situation. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Garlisi

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No SIGCOV found. No article on Italian wiki.Canary757 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV to show that this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tetr.io

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NGAME, with no independent reviews or coverage besides listacles found on this article or in my WP:BEFORE searches. Previous blank and redirects were reverted. -1ctinus📝🗨 14:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Tetris variants. Besides what's in the article, I also found [1] and [2], but it's just a lot of listicles where nobody has written anything substantial or over two paragraphs about the game. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tetris variants#Unofficial games (or an anchor, given the list's length) as it was before, where the game's already mentioned. Definitely does not meet WP:NGAME per nom. (As a disclaimer, I created Tetr.io as that redirect before it became an article.) Nyakase (talk • she/her) 16:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tetris variants. No real SIGCOV here, just listicles. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Listicles can support notability though, they just tend to lack significant coverage as is the case here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per all. A mention at the target could be a compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Al-Hammadi

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

doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT with no secondary sources -1ctinus📝🗨 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Qatar. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. A search for sources yielded namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bepi Pezzulli

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

An unimportant person promoting himself. Does not meet any notability criteria. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Largely appears PROMO, with most links that are RS about an Italian campaign that the subject seems to be involved with. Nothing showing this is a notable individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, Deltete because of vanity and no notability. The whole article is trying to inflate unremarkable things in Bepi Pezzulli’s biography, e.g. he has apparently written two books that no‑one has reviewed, and the article tells us who has prefaced these books, and the jobs of these preface authors are written out in an attempt to make them (and Bepi Pezzulli) look important. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – An alternative to deletion is to have the article reduced to a stub and rewritten without the promotional aspects of it. Reliable and in-depth coverage does exist. Yue🌙 09:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A certain amount of coverage in media will exist when a person comes in fifth place (2,598 votes, 5.3%) in a constituency in an election for Parliament, and when the person does a number of things in public like Bepi Pezzulli has done. The reasons why the article should be deleted anyway are firstly the lack of notability and secondly vanity and promotion. It is probably self‐promotion because the article is mainly written by one user and by IP‑address-users who only write about Bepi Pezzulli. Jan Arvid Götesson (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Conservatism, Law, Italy, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I say that Bloomberg News is deprecated as a reliable source, I only have to quote "appears on the Bloomberg terminals via the Alliance Dow Jones newswire." A wall of text and unreliable sources can't bury the fact that this person has received nothing close to significant coverage. As a lawyer, he also badly fails my standards for attorneys. In 2025, every professional knows that we are not LinkedIn. Even although the subject didn't pay for this stinking mess of a page, the page borders on violating the ABA rules on attorney advertising. I'll assume that a fan wrote this as a favor. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTCV. Unelected candidate at the UK general elections, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haldyn Glass

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Gujarat and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too promotional for wiki --Moarnighar (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. Looks like promotional article with poor and primary sources. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you take out "Money Works for me dot com" and other incredibly unreliable sources, we are left with promotional matter mixed with original research. We are not a free web host or marketplace, but a charity, and in 2025, everyone knows that. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tunbow

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

Appears to be wholly promotional Amigao (talk) 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Hong Kong. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only routine business listings found. Fails WP:NCORP. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company's Chinese name is Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) and the founder is Charles Chan (traditional Chinese: 陳鑑光; simplified Chinese: 陈鉴光). Cunard (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Chong, Cheng-man 莊程敏; Yan, Kiu-ling 殷考玲 (2021-09-09). "老品牌拓疆土升級須創新" [Old Brands Expand Territories, Upgrading Requires Innovation]. Lion Rock Daily [zh] (in Chinese). p. P6. Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "有「熨斗大王」之稱的東保集團創辦人兼主席陳鑑光博士，憑藉2001年推出自家研發塑料製成的電子控溫熨斗，短短一年售出逾70萬件，從此奠定集團在歐洲市場的地位，但他並未因此滿足。去年在港設立研究開發部門，為進軍大灣區9市市場作準備，目標以開拓9+2城市的家庭為主。東保集團成立逾25年，產品走中高端路線，研究開發（R&D）部門一直在內地，但由去年起在香港同樣設立R&D部門並設逾20位開發人員"
  From Google Translate: "Dr. Chen Jianguang, the founder and chairman of Tunbow Group, known as the "Iron King", launched his own electronic temperature-controlled irons made of plastic in 2001. More than 700,000 units were sold in just one year, establishing the group's position in the European market. status, but he was not satisfied with it. Last year, a research and development department was established in Hong Kong to prepare for entering the 9 cities in the Greater Bay Area. The goal is to develop families in the 9+2 cities. Tunbow Group has been established for more than 25 years, and its products are mid-to-high-end. The research and development (R&D) department has always been in the mainland. But since last year, it has also set up an R&D department in Hong Kong with more than 20 developers."
2. "鼓勵溝通合作助企業擺脫單打獨鬥香港模具及產品科技協會見證「百業之母」改朝換代" [Encouraging Communication and Cooperation to Help Businesses Break Free from Solo Struggles: Hong Kong Mould and Product Technology Association Witnesses the Transformation of the 'Mother of All Industries']. Headline Daily (in Chinese). 2016-01-28. p. P40.
  The article notes: "憑首創開放蒸發器熨斗，成功晉身世界五大熨斗代工生產商，贏得“熨斗大王”稱譽的東保集團創辦人兼主席陳鑑光博士（Dr. Charles Chan，見圖），全靠他面對挑戰時視危為機的信念。陳鑑光博士與他的太太在90年代初期決定闖一闖，合組貿易公司，成立東保。在創業初期，東保只是以設計及貿易性質運作。"
  From Google Translate: "With the first open evaporator iron, Dr. Charles Chan (pictured), founder and chairman of Tunbow Group, successfully joined the world's top five iron OEM manufacturers and won the title of "Iron King", all because of his ability to face challenges The belief that every crisis is an opportunity. Dr. Chen Kam-kwong and his wife decided to venture into the business in the early 1990s, forming a trading company and establishing Tunbow. In the early days of business, Tunbow only operated in the nature of design and trading."
3. Sit, Wai-kit 薛偉傑 (2010-08-06). "小家電商 8招抗逆境" [8 Strategies for Small Home Appliance Businesses to Overcome Adversity]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. B11.
  The article notes: "東保集團成立於1995 年，主力生產小型家電，特別是電熨斗。其客戶包括多個知名品牌如伊萊克斯、飛利浦、白朗、Kenwood、勝家等。"
  From Google Translate: "Tunbow Group was established in 1995 and focuses on the production of small household appliances, especially electric irons. Its customers include many well-known brands such as Electrolux, Philips, Blanc, Kenwood, Singer, etc."
  The article notes: "另外，東保集團與一般廠商不同的，是它很強調一條龍式垂直生產。該公司自設電路板生產部、五金部、壓鑄部、塑膠部、噴油部等。總之，就是自行生產其小家電所需的電路板、金屬機殼、塑膠機殼，以及自行為機殼噴油。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, Tunbow Group is different from ordinary manufacturers in that it emphasises one-stop vertical production. The company has its own circuit board production department, hardware department, die-casting department, plastic department, fuel injection department, etc. In short, it means producing the circuit boards, metal casings, and plastic casings needed for its small household appliances by itself, and spraying oil on the casings by itself."
4. Leung Man-fung 梁文峰 (2010-07-12). "東保拓內銷或5年內上市" [Tunbow Expands Domestic Sales, May Go Public within 5 Years]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). p. B1.
  The article notes: "家電設計、生產商東保集團為開拓內銷市場，正於惠州投資5億元擴展生產基地，預計總產能將提升5 倍。現時深圳兩廠房共有約20條生產線，年產800萬台小家電。"
  From Google Translate: "Tunbow Group, a home appliance designer and manufacturer, is investing 500 million yuan to expand its production base in Huizhou in order to develop the domestic market. It is expected that the total production capacity will increase five times. Currently, the two factories in Shenzhen have a total of about 20 production lines, with an annual output of 8 million units of small household appliances."
5. "圖：深圳港資企業「綠色風」盛" [Tunbow Expands Domestic Sales, May Go Public Within 5 Years] (in Chinese). China News Service. 2010-07-07.
  The article notes: "7月7日，一群香港媒體記者專程來到深圳寶安，釆訪推行「綠色生產」、「綠色小家電」揚名業界的香港東保集團深圳生產基地。該集團為減少生產污染投資3,000多萬港圓對硬體和軟體進行改善工程，企業環保創新產品不斷出現。目前集團20條生產線，年產800萬台各式家用電器，暢銷美國、加拿大及歐盟、東南亞26個國家。"
  From Google Translate: "On 7 July a group of Hong Kong media reporters made a special trip to Bao'an, Shenzhen to visit the Shenzhen production base of Hong Kong Tunbow Group, which is famous in the industry for promoting "green production" and "green small home appliances". The group has invested more than HKD 30 million in hardware and software improvement projects to reduce production pollution, and innovative environmentally friendly products have continued to emerge. At present, the group has 20 production lines, with an annual output of 8 million units of various household appliances, which are sold well in the United States, Canada, the European Union, and 26 countries in Southeast Asia."
6. "東保集團董事總經理鄧美華東保集團積極開拓高技術高加值特色化的家電產品" [Tunbow Group Managing Director, Ms. Tan Meihua: Tunbow Group Actively Expanding High-Tech, High-Value, and Specialised Home Appliance Products]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). 2018-12-19. p. AA10.
  The article notes: "身為本港知名企業，東保集團積極開拓高技術、高增值、特色化的家電產品，推出電子熨斗、強力蒸氣專業熨斗、電子蒸籠、濃湯機及全自動咖啡機。公司成立於1994年，與香港一同經歷風雨，亦一同成長。作為營商者為公司賺取利潤固然重要，但東保集團更有一份香港精神，與客戶共渡時艱，這更為可貴。"
  From Google Translate: "As a well-known enterprise in Hong Kong, Tunbow Group actively develops high-tech, high value-added and specialised home appliance products, launching electronic irons, powerful steam professional irons, electronic steamers, soup makers and fully automatic coffee machines. The company was established in 1994 and has experienced ups and downs together with Hong Kong and has grown together. As a businessman, it is important to make profits for the company, but Tunbow Group has more of a Hong Kong spirit and shares difficulties with its customers, which is even more valuable."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tunbow Group (traditional Chinese: 東保集團; simplified Chinese: 东保集团) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional review of new sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Took a look at Cunard's sources and I am convinced by the coverage provided in sources 2, 3, 5, and 6, which are sufficient to pass NCORP. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Villagers Film Studio

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it shows the studio's importance with reliable sources and achievements --Kej Keir (talk) 08:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no SIGCOV about the studio in any of the sources cited in the article. There are only trivial mentions which are not enough for WP:NCORP Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Gutierrez

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

Page on an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I must have a lower threshold for #C1 notability than the nominator, because I think the case for notability through many triple-digit citation counts is enough. It's interesting that he made it from dreamer to full professor; interestingness isn't a notability criterion but the KCRA video profile and ACS "talented 12" coverage look independent and in-depth (a third source, the NIH career conversation, is not independent because it's just an interview) giving him also a weak case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with David Eppstein. Qflib (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Degtyarev

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

Page on an academic created directly in main after being declined once at AfC. Beyond an unsourced statement about creating new naval equipment, the only suggestion of notability is academic participation in D-SELF theory, a very low citation neologism created in 1989. Citations and awards don't pass WP:NPROF and there is nothing for general notability here or via a search. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no evidence of WP:PROF notability, except maybe through #C2 and the "Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation". We have no sourcing for this (nor for most of the article content) so I cannot tell whether this award was handed out indiscriminately to many people or as a high honor to a very limited number of people. Without that information I do not feel confident using it as the only basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milenka Peña

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

The journalist is not notable, with 90% of the information added lacking any sources. Cinder painter (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Bolivia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Radio and television journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG — but this article has no footnotes at all to establish GNG, and instead just provides a contextless stack of external links to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability. As always, the key to making a journalist notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to reference it to content self-published by her own employers (which is what most of the external links here are) — it's to show evidence that her work has been externally validated as significant through coverage about her in third party sources that didn't issue her paycheques. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Neeson

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

Fails to meet ANYBIO, not significant coverage. Blogs or slideshare-like sources only. Cinder painter (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual. Not sure what the "Demand Waterfall" is supposed to be, this does appear to be PROMO for the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a lot of coverage but most of these sources don't look reliable. There is a WSJ article with a minor mention but the rest of the sources seem very weak. Moopaz (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where is the alleged notability? Bearian (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McDonald (academic)

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

Extensive promotional content, marketing professor not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Cinder painter (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Marketing professor is first to pull marketing stunt" is not really a case for notability. The more likely path would seem to be WP:AUTHOR through reviews of his books. I found 1 1/3 reviews [3] [4] but I don't think it's quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a badly constructed page which is surprising in some ways for a marketing BLP. I did find a claim that his book was a bestseller plus some other stuff here and here, but it is not quite enough to be convincing. Since this page has been around as a weak stub for many years I think deletion is appropriate. If a new editor wants to write a better version they should submit that to AfC. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Eisend

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

Many publications and extensive promotional content, but likely not notable Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Cinder painter (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.: with 13,000 citations and an h-index of 59, subject meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveats. It needs a lot of work to cut out the ~~pain~~ paid contributions, but AfD isn't the place for that. Just an aside: if he paid for it, he was ripped off. Clearly passes the Prof Test as noted above; also full chair at a good university. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drama Queen (manga)

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

Fails WP:GNG, I've search "Drama Queen" on Google News which yield only non-RS sources such as WP:CBR even the ANN encyclopedia has no news on the manga. I search both Natalie, Oricon and Real Sound and even the Japanese title on Google News yield only non-RS and primary sources. (I search both "ドラマクイーン” and "ドラマクイン”) and even the romaji Dorama Kuin and still nothing. The article is also includes unreliable source involving ScreenRant and ComicBook.com (per WP:A&M/RS this should not be used in Controverial topic which is used in the article). Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of series run in Shōnen Jump+#2024 per nom; I looked for sources myself but couldn't find anything worth noting. While there are manga notable due to xenophobia like Manga Kenkanryu, this one doesn't seem to be notable quite yet. That being said, it also has yet to release a volume, so this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON too. Link20XX (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The artist is not notable at all. The work is not completed, and in addition, is not notable at all. No need of redirect. If this work and this artist will be notable in some future, then create the artist article, and then create the work page. In my opinion, only very few peoples (who publish/ed their works in commercial magazines) may become a professional manga artist, and will become notable.-Flora fon Esth (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Flora fon Esth: This article is not about a person, but a work; additionally, works tend to be notable before their creators are since having a popular work is usually what makes a creator notable. Regarding The work is not completed, and in addition, is not notable at all, being ongoing doesn't mean a manga can't be notable, see something like Kagurabachi as an example. Regarding redirecting, List of series run in Weekly Shōnen Jump has seven redirects to it from manga series (some of which were even the result of an AfD), so this redirection has precedent and keeping the history publicly available could be helpful if this manga becomes notable some day. Link20XX (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of series run in Shōnen Jump+#2024; in agreement with @Link20XX SimonLagann (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commane

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[5][6], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names originating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[7] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks utterly unreliable as it is not backed up by the given sources. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at the correct sources, writing a reply to this now Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the points raised:

Addressing the points raised, at great length

Irish chiefdoms persisted over a long period in Thomond (Co. Clare) during the Middle Ages, partly due to the failure of the Vikings and Anglo-Normans to establish strongholds in the region. As we are discussing the early medieval period, when written records were sparse, scholars have to reconstruct the history through analysis of historical texts, place-names, archaeological excavations and comparative data. The sites of Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun are physical archaeological locations, which further underline the chiefdom's significance.

The chiefdom of Tulach Commáin, centered on its capital at Cahercommaun, encompassed a territory of considerable importance, possibly spanning three residential sites and the Arran islands. Cahercommaun features a trivallate stone fort, serving as its political and ceremonial centre, a burial and inauguration site for chieftains at Tulach Commáin ('Mound of Commane'), and several associated monastic and ecclesiastical sites, underscoring its religious and administrative prominence in early medieval Ireland.

The primary sources for the Chiefdom of Commane include:

- Gibson, David Blair Ph.D. (1990). Tulach Commain: A view of an Irish chiefdom (500 pages on the subject), which has been referenced in several scholarly works, including Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe (1995)

- The Rulers of Tulach Commáin (Chapter Seven), From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland, Cambridge University Press (2012)

----

1. On the Spelling "Commane":

Notes on Irish Names and Spelling: The reader who is unacquainted with Irish culture, history, and language may experience confusion with Irish names due to their many variations in spelling and different names for the same thing, partly due to linguistic development of the Irish language, so the spelling of words and the names themselves vary greatly between texts, especially in the Middle Ages. The article already acknowledges this challenge, stating:

"The various spellings of Commane and its variants can largely be attributed to the lack of Standard Irish until 1948 and the historical practice of English-speaking officials transcribing Irish names phonetically, often based on how the names were pronounced."

Furthermore, the capital city of the chiefdom Cahercommaun is sometimes locally referred to as Caher Commane, (see: https://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/the_burren/cahercommane.htm) demonstrating that "Commane" is a primary anglicised variant by the people in the area of the original chiefdom. The Wikipedia article also cites Gibson's book, noting that it refers to "variant spellings throughout: Comáin, Commáin, Comain, etc (different spellings and names are common in Ireland)." This reflects the historically variable nature of Irish names and the necessity of choosing one variant for clarity in an English-language encyclopedia, consistent with Wikipedia's naming conventions for Irish surnames (e.g., O'Brien vs. Ó Briain).

----

2. Historical Terminology:

While the spelling "chiefdom of Commane" does not explicitly appear in primary sources, it reflects the territorial and political structures documented in historical studies Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun (same names, different spellings). Scholars such as D. Blair Gibson and James Frost describe Cahercommaun as a political and ceremonial centre in County Clare, serving as the chiefdom and seat of the sept in the 8th–9th centuries. "Commane" serves as the English variant for Commáin, and the usage of the name aligns with the historical anglicisation of Irish surnames.

If necessary, I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin" to reflect the documented place-name and avoid ambiguity, even though this spelling was proposed by Gibson and he confesses to different spelling variants.

----

3. Notable Figures:

It should also be noted that the person's original name and chief in the original gaelic would have been Comáin or Commáin (anglicised to Commane) as quoted in the article "as hereditary surnames in Ireland only began emerging between the 9th and 11th centuries" so the the sons would have been Mac or Ó "meaning" son of or "descendent".

The lineage does includes notable individuals such as:

Saint Commán of Roscommon, Saint and founder of Rosscommon a key figure in Irish ecclesiastical history.

Célechair mac Commáin, recorded in the Annals of Ulster and

Annals of Innisfallen, who was of the Eóganacht Uí Cormaic and died in the Battle of Corcmodruadh (704–705 A.D.).

Coman of Kinvara, Saint

Colmán mac Comán the second abbot listed in the Irish annals

Variants such as "Ó Comáin," "Commáin," and "Comáin" are consistently tied to the same lineage, which historical sources document as playing a significant role in Munster's early medieval socio-political landscape.

In 1052 AD there is a mention of spelling Comman in the Irish annals Part 15 of the Annals of the Four Masters.

In the sourced Early Bearers and Historical Records section it clears shows from the off shoots from Ó Comáin:

Laerunce Commane, 1796 in Flaxgrowers List (Ross, Cork);

Maurice O Koman, yeoman, and son Rory O Coman, 1573 in Fiants Elizabeth §2251 (Kanturk, Cork); Note spellings

These variations are consistent with historical naming practices, as highlighted in genealogical studies and sources like the Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh's 17th-century genealogical compilation, Leabhar Mór na nGenealach (The Great Book of Irish Genealogies), a key source for tracing Irish lineages.

----

4. Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly

Yes, my mistake, I added the wrong source reference to the article for this, which I've now updated.

The words Camán and Comán are linguistically different, none of the Commane variants start with Cam, therefore some sources are incorrectly claim the name is linked to Hurley.

Here is a source to the contrary stating it's a mistranslation.

----

4. Verifiability and Sources:

The article incorporates referenced material from primary and secondary sources, including works by historians like Frost, Gibson, and O'Hart, alongside primary annals. The references also highlight the historical prominence of the Chiefdom of Commane (Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun).

If further clarity is needed, do let me know. In the meantime I will refine the language or include additional references to bolster the article’s verifiability.

I hope this response clarifies the rationale behind the article's naming and content. Please let me know if there are further adjustments you'd like to see.

----

At the footer of the page other sources are noted:

"Annals of Innisfallen." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Annals of Ulster." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "The History and Topography of the County of Clare." Frost, James. Internet Archive. | "Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae." O'Brien, M. A. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. | "Irish Kings and High-Kings." Byrne, F. J. Four Courts Press. | "Irish Pedigrees: Or, The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation." O'Hart, John. M.H. Gill & Son. | "Leabhar Mór na nGenealach." Mac Fhirbhisigh, Dubhaltach. Edited by Nollaig Ó Muraíle. De Búrca Rare Books. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu. | "CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Discover Cahercommaun with Archaeologist, Michael Lynch." Burrenbeo. Burrenbeo | "Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400-1100: The Evidence from Archaeological Excavations." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Picture Perfect: Using Drone Technology and Photogrammetry Techniques to Map the Western Stone Forts of Ireland." Academia.edu. Academia.edu Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words to say very little, it seems. No idea why this is at Commane and not at e.g. "Ó Comáin", unless it is because you have some COI with the Commane family you added to Newhall House and Estate or something similar. Nothing you state above contradicts that there is no reliable source about the "Chiefdom of Commane", or that none of the notable persons you listed are called "Commane" (you listed some rather random persons with the name, no one disputes that the name exists). Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I’m honestly just trying my best to address each of your points thoughtfully. To clarify, my "COI" is that I live in Clare and my surname is Hurley, which often gets incorrectly linked to Commane, a widely recognised surname here. The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedia uses "O'Brien" instead of "Ó Briain," consistent with its naming conventions for Irish surnames. While "Ó Comáin" would be more appropriate for the Irish-language version of Wikipedia, it doesn’t mean the history of the name or its variants is unnotable simply because "Ó Comáin" lacks extensive individual articles. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look at Section 1 of my response, where I’ve outlined the historical and archaeological basis for the "Chiefdom of Commane" and its connection to Clare. That said, I’m open to collaboration and willing to move the article to "Ó Comáin" if there’s a consensus that it’s more appropriate. My main goal here is to preserve the effort I’ve put into the article, as the the sources are valid, and I’d prefer not to see it deleted. If there are specific concerns you feel remain unresolved, I’m happy to discuss them further and make adjustments. I’m just trying to contribute something meaningful here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[8], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[9] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't state that Commane is the standard anglicization either, it seems... Fram (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No communication since, no. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, as far as I’m aware, it is not a copyright violation to include a list of names from a source, they help prove root of name. Reporting me (again) unjustly to administrators (whose prior review did not result in any action against me) without fully engaging with my responses is not constructive and only creates unnecessary tension. I have taken the time to address all of your concerns and provide balanced explanations, supported by credible sources. However, your unwillingness to read my response and now your presentation of a false narrative is both unfair and unproductive. I remain committed to improving this article collaboratively. However, given your history of targeting me, I believe it would be more constructive for a third party or another editor to engage with me on this matter instead of yourself. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I’d also like to kindly ask you to carefully re-read Section 2 of my response, where I state that I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin." Thank you for your consideration. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram as you've stated you're not reading my responses, Tulach Commáin means in english "The Mound of Commane". I am happy to renaming it to the Gaelic. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You are the only one ever to use "The Mound of Commane", in two Wikipedia articles. Reliable sources almost invariably use the Irish name (which is a recent invention anyway), not some translation, and one source uses "The Burial Mound of Commán". Fram (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[10] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [11] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the quote you just linked to it says Tulach Comma (The [burial] Mound of Comman) notice "burial" is in brackets meaning optional and it's referred to else where without burial. The whole point of my wikipedia article is variations of the name. The same author uses Comáin, Commáin, Comain, interchangeable variants throughout the book and gives an explanation for why which I tried to do on the wikipedia page, it's the same name, I appreciate that's a strange concept from an English perspective.

I have both this book and the PhD thesis which is way more thorough and academic but yes similar.

In the PhD version he calls Tulach Commáin - the latest book version it's Tulach Comman -- same author and name Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin" - really? I'm living in Ireland all of my life, and I have never once heard the name, until today. "Cummins" is the usual translation to English of all of the various forms of the surname listed in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's predominantly in Muster / Clare (in the area of the original chiefdom) Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you make it sound as original research. The Banner talk 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands I wonder if this should perhaps be Draftified. Until some of the sourcing and formatting and WP:OR concerns are addressed. (Certainly, for an article in the mainspace, I was surprised to see a number of relatively small formatting, tagging and tweaking edits that I had made completely reverted. Almost certainly in error. But implying that, perhaps, the title is not yet "fully formed" - to the extent that it's "ready" for the main article namespace.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez I think we may have been editing the article at the same time, my apologies if I inadvertently caused any issues, it certainly wasn't intentional. Since then, it looks like you've made some recent edits, and I hope everything is now in order. On that note, I originally added several notes and quotes in the citations similar to the ones you've included on the page, to help it make more sense but they were removed by another editor. You can see this in the page's edit history. Regarding your comment in the history section, these topics are being discussed on the Talk page, your input would be most welcome there. Thank you! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly huge amounts of original research, incorrect or poorly-formatted citations, inclusion of barely relevant detail, and much else wrong (if you want examples of all, see the "Variants and distribution" section)—a really very subpar article. Obviously, a hatchet-job is needed even if Kellycrak88 is able to justify notability, but as I cannot see any evidence of significant coverage of the article subject, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article contains original research or invalid sources.

The content draws from reliable publications, especially the works of Dr Gibson, a professor of anthropology with a PhD in Irish chiefdoms. His 500-page dissertation (Tulach Commáin: A View of an Irish Chiefdom) and later book (From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland) are well-respected and often cited by other scholars.

Of course, the article could use some improvements, particularly in formatting and trimming less relevant details. I’m more than happy to collaborate further on this, as I’ve already worked with several editors to refine it.

Given the robust scholarly sources and the historical importance of the subject, I believe the article meets notability standards. I’m open to further feedback and willing to keep working to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

(Tulach Commáin translates to "The Mound of Commán," anglicised to Commane, with Tulach meaning Hill, Mount or Fort.)

Lastly, I think this is important: the old English spoken and written 500 or 1,000 years ago would be nearly incomprehensible to us today. The same applies to Irish. This chiefdom was in the 8th–9th century, and variations in the spelling of Irish names, later anglicised phonetically by English officials in Ireland, reflect linguistic changes over time. From an English perspective, this might seem like an odd concept, but it’s an integral part of understanding Irish historical and cultural context. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Asia Pacific Center for Theoretical Physics

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

This international non-governmental research institute for physical sciences fails to meet NCORP and is full of Original research. BoraVoro (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, Asia, and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Swiss Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Swiss Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Swiss Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. No sources or in-depth coverage for over a decade since creation. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per nom. No sigcov. Reasonable search term. Frank Anchor 15:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect All - Wikipedia is not a sports results database. No SIGCOV, also not notable per WP:NSPORTSEVENT --John B123 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to Swiss Figure Skating Championships. No need for individual articles when the only salient points, ie the medalists, are covered in the parent article and there is no significant coverage of the individual events.
Shrug02 (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkumar Periasamy

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

Promotional and not important (notable) Indian film director. Nq Wisit (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Poor nomination rationale. To start with, if you could mention which sentence is promotional in this article, it would probably take a minute or two to fix it in an article of this size. There is literally nothing promotional in the article, though. WP:DIRECTOR#3 is met here, as Rajkumar Periasamy has created significant or well-known work, or a collective body of work, i.e., Rangoon (2017 Tamil film) and Amaran (2024 film), both of which are the primary subjects of multiple independent reviews. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/rajkumar-periasamy-kamal-haasan-sir-was-the-one-who-thought-sivakarthikeyan-would-be-perfect-for-amaran-9175103/	Indian Express is consider RS	Though, Paywalled, by the first bits, it is already passes	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/rajkumar-periasamy-on-sivakarthikeyans-transformation-for-amaran/article68810204.ece	The Hindu is reliable	Article is about him	✔ Yes
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/tamil/dhanush-to-collaborate-with-amaran-director-rajkumar-periasamy-in-d55-9659912/	Indian Express is consider RS	Paywalled but base on the title and the first paragraph I can tell this article has already SigCov	✔ 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}}.

Keep base on the assessment above and Deletion is not clean up Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NDIRECTOR through Rangoon and Amaran. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mrinmoy Bhowmick

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

Promotional and not important (notable) Indian film director. Nq Wisit (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've checked its sources, and although I tried to fix one dead link, most of them are still dead. Additionally, his name is hardly searchable on Google. Aona1212 (talk) 12:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural Close‎. The article is already deleted (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale was CSD G12. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boo Chanco

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

Not notable journalist, no achievements or reliable sources to meet ANYBIO BoraVoro (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the notability issue, I did mention at least two achievements of the journalist -- winning his alma mater UP's award meant for good journalists like him, and getting another from Rotary Club of Manila for his worthy, hard-hitting opinions. I also mentioned reliable sources thereof. Please reconsider and/or help improve the article. Some Wikipedia articles, in fact, mentioned his name and his thoughts on issues in the Philippines. Dcalviar2 (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I tagged this page per CSD G12 per the copy vio here. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems the article was deleted due to WP:COPYVIO so I guess this AfD discussion is moot? In case anyone wants to start the article, feel free to create it in draftspace and make sure to assert the subject's notability. —seav (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black Opium (perfume)

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

The perfume looks like non-notable and I did not locate any outstanding or independent reliable sources. BoraVoro (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as an alternative it could be redirected here Opium (perfume) BoraVoro (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know a lot about perfume or about the reliability of fashion sources so am happy to be corrected by those who know more about this area, but I think there's enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Excluding the dozens and dozens of "top 10 perfume" lists and "this is the perfect Black Opium dupe" junk articles, there seem to be a good number of reviews and product announcements in reliable sources. Some of these are a little shallow, but these are some examples of what I could find:

And that's not to mention the many, many articles about the advertising controversies, which aren't enough to show notability on their own but probably do contribute a little to notability. There were also quite a few scholarly sources in fields like marketing and fashion history that provide mentions of Black Opium. MCE89 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been looking a lot into fragrances lately, which is also the reason why I came across this page and noticed the deletion template. But I can tell this is an extremely popular fragrance which is here to stay for many years to come and there are lots of sources for it. It also has many variants made because of its popularity. Coldbolt (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Bleyer

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A couple of mentions but not SIGCOV. Wikipedia.de no help either.Canary757 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with @Canary757. Most sources found on Google are merely passing mentions, with nothing indicating significant coverage. The same goes with his partner Nicole Nönnig.Aona1212 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage.
Shrug02 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the article used as a reference in the Web Archive, here →→→ [12]. That's a complete biography for you.
Strong keep. (Considering that he competed more than 20 years ago and that that time's figure skating articles are impossible to find.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something about him and his pair with Nicole Nönnig in a book: [13]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph and a half here: [14]. One paragraph here: [15]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like most of the participants in this discussion, I'm not finding the requisite WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent sources to meet the WP:GNG. While I am unable to view the book coverage, the two articles shown here only mention the subject in passing, which isn't near enough to establish notability. For example, the extent the subject is mentioned in the first article is the note that "The Chemnitz pair Nicole Nönnig/Matthias Bleyer came eighth and second to last. "With better performance, they would have achieved much more," said Annette Dytrt, who fell in the Salchow and Rittberger." A check elsewhere didn't reveal anything better that could help this subject meet the relevant notability guidelines. Please ping me if better sources can be uncovered. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The SkateToday source is by far the strongest, but the amount of detail directly on Bleyer is just not enough considering the total weakness of the other sources. The book source is a passing mention. The article claimed to be a "paragraph and a half" in fact has two sentences in a routine event recap, and the other "paragraph" source is also a couple of primary mentions in another routine recap (only the bolded parts are on Bleyer directly): Their club colleagues Nicole Nönnig/Matthias Bleyer overtook them with a better performance and finished the competition in eighth place. [...] But the German vice-champions are also still lacking stability: 20-year-old Nicole Nönnig had problems with the double Axel and only jumped the Rittberger once, while her partner, who is four years older, stumbled on the double Rittberger. [...] [Bleyer] struggled with his fitness at the end of the program. JoelleJay (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Nönnig

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found several mentions, but none with significant coverage. Aona1212 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No SIGCOV found on search, failing GNG.Canary757 (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see there's a German wiki version too, which makes sense since the subject is German, but i hazily think of the German wikipedia as being tougher on notability. Both the en and de version were created by the same editor. In any event, i see some german news mentions of her, but not significant and she didn't have international wins that would make me think an article surely must exist on her.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Cannot find any significant coverage.
Shrug02 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something about her in a book: [16]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One paragraph and a half here: [17]. One paragraph here: [18].
These paragraphs don't constitute significant coverage, but it's still something. So I've decided to leave the links here. (Der Spiegel and some German sites don't open for me, but you can search for "Nicole Nönnig Eiskunstlauf".) --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the article used as a reference in the Web Archive, here →→→ [19]. That's a complete biography for you.
Strong keep. (Considering that she competed more than 20 years ago and that that time's figure skating articles are impossible to find.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Of the sources provided by Moscow Connection, while I can't view the book source the articles in order are (1) a couple of sentences briefly mentioning the skaker and her partner finishing second to last at a tournament, with no additional detail (2) a passing mention in an tournament recap and (3) a substantial bio about the subject and her partner, which while this is WP:SIGCOV with only one usable source there isn't nearly enough for this BLP to meet the guidelines. Please ping me if more coverage can be found as I am open to changing my vote should more/better coverage be found. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrov

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CarBone (company)

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

Highly doubt it's ready for Wikipedia and has enough RS. Company's cars Criollo and Tardza have been removed via AfD last year. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RBC Direct Investing

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

Not meeting NCORP, no reliable media coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: literally no secondary sourcing to prove any notability. Could be talked about in existing articles on RBC. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens ter Laak

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Boyner

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

The person is not notable as it lacks sufficient independent media coverage, not connected to the subject and with the proper depth Taking off shortly (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Zakaria al-Jamal

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Even the killing of al-Jamal doesn't meet GNG (if it did, this article would still fail under WP:BLP1E). VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. He is (maybe) notable only for his death which is against WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We will all die, but hopefully not by getting taken out by the IDF, along with three friends. Not memorial, run of the mill, 15 seconds of fame, original research, etc. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Al-Qassam Brigades#Killed leaders where the case is mentioned. Not a big shot, still ATD and CHEAP are in order. gidonb (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genki Ishisaka

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AFD. Doesn't meet WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG this time either. Japanese Wikipedia only contains primary sources, a squad list and a blog piece. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John B. Lee

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by WP:GNG-worthy third-party coverage about them in media and books -- but this article is completely unreferenced, and is not making any strong notability claims.
The main attempts at notability claims are that he's been municipal poet laureate of a small city, which isn't an automatic notability freebie without sourcing for it, and that he's been a recipient of various minor and/or unspecified literary awards that aren't highly prominent enough to confer instant inclusion freebies without sourcing for them. An award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, so notability doesn't derive from the presence of the word "award" (or sticking the word "prestigious" in front of it) in the article text, it derives from the quality of the sourcing you can show to demonstrate that the award is a sufficiently notable and/or prestigious one in the first place.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on his sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has a substantial entry in Canadian Poetry Online, published by the University of Toronto Libraries, along with some of his poems. There are numerous reviews in the Canadian Book Review Annual, a Globe and Mail review, a review in the journal Essays on Canadian Writing, and he is in the book Five Canadian Poets: Analytical Essays on, James Deahl, John B. Lee, Don Gutteridge, Glen Sorestad, A. F. Moritz. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:NAUTHOR per Clarityfiend. More sources: [20], [21], [22]. Jfire (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pir (Alevism)

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

Tagged many years ago as unsourced this does not seem notable enough to need a separate article. No objection to merging but I don’t know which other article would be most suitable. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a unsourced fork of Pir. The Alevi denomination is Islamic. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lecoanet Hemant

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Century Textile and Industries

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Repro India

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Print Week is potentially a good source and start for a stub, but I don't know. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RNB Research

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Media sources are either dead links or have no mentions at all. They should be reviewed carefully once again. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niyogi Books

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nectar Lifesciences

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Machine Works

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suara Hidayatullah

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

This article does not indicate notability, relying exclusively on two self-published sources.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep the sources should be added. I found some that are behind a paywall and hope there is a way to include them, along with any others. --Taking off shortly (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Taking off shortly: Please show us what you find to help us determine if it counts for GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Taking off shortly: Please feel free to add the sources you’ve found, even if they are behind a paywall, as long as they meet the criteria for WP:RS. Without these additions, the article may face deletion due to insufficient evidence of notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 16:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Risala Weekly

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

Created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user, the article does not establish notability and cites only a self-published source.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:

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

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, including one page in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age and one paragraph in The Last Pirate's History of Doctor Who... -Mushy Yank. 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a 13-page paper dedicated to the series https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505; see also https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505. Please kindly consider withdrawing this nomination as your concern seems addressed. @OlifanofmrTennant. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the book Playing Fans reuses large portions of the paper, as confirmed by the book's acknowledgements (and a quick skimming of both sources – the paper can be viewed through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library), so they're basically a single source. And the mention in The Last Pirate's History is a brief mention in a long list, so I wouldn't call that mention significant. Other sources in the article may contribute to notability as well, but these by themselves aren't enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say they are. But if you want, feel free to add Broadcast in the U.S.: Foreign TV Series Brought to America, p. 232-233. And https://collider.com/community-inspector-spacetime/ And http://braindamaged.fr/20/11/2012/web-serie-zone-inspector-spacetime/ And https://geeksofdoom.com/2014/03/12/inspector-spacetimes-untitled-web-series-needs-help-make-inspector-chronicles-movie And so on. No further comments. Still inviting the nominator to withdraw. -Mushy Yank. 12:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Geeks of Doom reliable? And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion. The Collider source talks about it at the very end with nothing beyond "this cool thing happened and there was no season 2" Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you open the books? Read the papers? Check other existing sources? -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion."=No, most of the sources I mention talk about the web series which you took for deletion, and some are "particurly in depth." So your concern that "Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV" seems totally addressed (if a page can "fail" an essay, btw). https://www.vulture.com/2012/09/not-inspector-spacetime.html (limited) https://comicbook.com/comicbook/news/communitys-inspector-spacetime-launches-his-own-untitled-webseries/ (for the history of the production) and so on. https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-inspector-chronicles-is-the-doctor-who-spoof-movie-sorta-spun-off-from-community-e844667fd8e7/ It meets the general requirements for notability even if it's only with the dedicated article and 2 of the books. Feel free to add the sources you like best to the page. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erratum: in my first reply to myself I linked twice the same paper; the second paper I intended to link was: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814558907 -Mushy Yank. 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(noting for anyone who can't view the article through TWL) This is another article by the same author, Paul Booth. Per WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. It's also a pretty brief mention, with only one paragraph about it in a much larger paper about a broader topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions from editors well-versed in this field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiveColab

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Under Hive Colab there are multiple sources that support notability, see New Vision, Independent, AsiaTechDaily, Nile Post, Pctechmag, and BBC FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are multiple sources but after looking at them, I do not feel comfortable using these to establish notability. My initial comment is the article is about HiveColab while the focus on a lot of these articles is about YSAU (Youth Startup Academy Uganda) which is one of the accelerator programs under it. Per WP:NOTINHERITED while they are related, we cannot use the program alone to cover for the organization above it and HiveColab should be able to stand by itself. Also something irking me is how promotional the whole thing seems. I see mention of co-founder Barbara Birungi and judging by the state of her article, it feels like there is some PR campaign being held for her (and possibly her firm) on the internet. Anyway:
  - New Vision: There seems to be a related press release for this here. This is reporting on a ceremony for YSAU, a program under Hive Collab rather than Hive Collab itself. Half of it are just promotional quotes by related parties. If you look at the remaining content, most of it looks very similar to the press release. Edit: ITC states it is involved in implementing YSAU so it’s a related party. The press release from Hive Collab is here which has similar wording content.
  - Independent: First thing I noticed is this article is not authored to an individual. There's another site with the exact same content here so I’m wondering if this is just a form of a press release. The focus is on Ugandan startups signing deals at Gitex in Morocco. The focus is not on Hive Collab but the entrepreneurs under it. The latter half of the article can be ignored since not about Hive Collab. So taking out the quotes, its pretty much a non-notable entity named Dain Leaders Corporation signing an MOU with Hive Collab and the supposed benefits in a press release manner.
  - AsiaTechDaily: Non-notable entity GCCEI signs an MOU with Hive Collab. That's kinda it. While it is authored, it seems like a regurgitated press release of a routine deal given how short it is and the language used.
  - NilePost: This one does seem to be more than a press release (I think). But in my view looking at it, the main focus is on YSAU companies attending Gitex in Morocco with a chance to show themselves. There doesn’t seem to be much analysis on Hive Collab itself. Edit: Here is the original press release, the 15 YSAU startups are directly copied so the source is now much weaker.
  - PC Tech: There seems to be a related press release (or update as called) for this here. This article is not authored to an individual. Another ceremony of people from YSAU graduating. Large chunks of it are just kinda copied from the press release.
  - BBC: Very brief mention of Hive Collab and in fact seems to be more on Barbara Birungi herself.
- So looking at all of them, they fail WP:SIRS in my view. To save time just give the best three independent in-depth sources going forward. - Imcdc Contact 05:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  You should be clear when you say a press release to indicate how did you come to that conclusion.
  
  All of what you labelled as a “press release” is either not a press release by the organisation, see New Vision or is not one at all, see Nile Post. And I am not sure who did you dismiss the mention by the BBC. This organisation is not in Global West, it is in Uganda and still mentioned by the BBC. FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  FYI, I have updated the above analysis.
  
  See WP:PRSOURCE. A press release doesn’t need to directly come from Hive Colab. It can come from an affiliated party. We know ITC is affiliated because it itself says the YSAU is implemented by ITC, Hive Collab and several other parties. So no independence there. WP:PRSOURCE also mentions how less reputable news sources will write an article based on a press release which we are seeing here in examples of churnalism. Btw I have found some of the press releases by Hive Collab and updated above based on it. For example we can see now that Nile Post has indeed copied a chunk out of a press release.- Imcdc Contact 12:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mention in books:
- The Bright Continent published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
- Digital Divides published by Taylor & Francis.
- Innovate for agriculture published by CTA.
- Empowering African Women Entrepreneurs in the Fashion Industry published by Springer International.
- Citizen-Driven Innovation published by the World Bank.
- UNESCO Science Report published by UNESCO.
- Disruptive Technologies, Innovation and Development in Africa published by Springer International.
- Africa’s Development Dynamics 2021 published by the African Union.
FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if its because Google Books is cutting off my access to see the whole thing, but almost everything seems to be a very short mention. A lof seem to be just something like this: ilab (Liberia), Hive Collab (Uganda), Etrilabs (Benin)... and thats it. The only one that offers more is the UNESCO one. But its just one short section giving very general (and sort of generic) description of Hive Collab. I don't think this is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV for an WP:NCORP subject. Imcdc Contact 11:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes all of them are mentions and not a dedicated chapter or even a whole page in the book. I will add the full excerpt later as most of them are not as you described.

Still, given it was mentioned in all of these sources (books/News) = coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Whether you consider that satisfy the “significant” part or not, I will leave it to you. I am of the opinion of keeping the article.

Also your comment about the BBC source is unfair, as Barbara Birungi was talking about HiveColab, quoting “"It's not about strict business. It's also about coming here to share your ideas, and collaborate. Because out of sharing and collaborating come ideas," says Ms Birungi. The Hive CoLab was opened to give the technology scene in Uganda a space that they could call their own and come and collaborate, says Barbara Birungi. "Apart from just offering them a space we see how we can take an idea to the next level. Because many startups fail within the first two years of existence."” FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks sustained notability over years. For example I could not find any notable and independent coverage between Jan 1, 2015 – Jan 5, 2019 XwycP3 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@XwycP3 that is not a policy. Coverage does not need to be "sustained"! by the same token, we should delete many articles because you cannot find a coverage about them between Jan 1, 2015 – Jan 5, 2019 FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's coverage is from 2013 and I wanted to see if it lacked coverage after that due to it not existing or simply not have being added to the article. Wikipedia:Notability: "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability". When I extend the search to today, the result is the same. XwycP3 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting the sentence just above what you quoted from Wikipedia:Notability: “Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.” + The sources just above your comment are from that period. FuzzyMagma (talk) 23:32, 5 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!} 06:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudreau brothers cycling incident

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Johnny Gaudreau#Death. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, Sportspeople, Crime, and New Jersey. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the Johnny Gaudreau article already covers the incident in enough detail, no need for a stand alone article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Johnny Gaudreau#Death per nom. The main article has more detail than this one Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johnny Gaudreau#Death: Per nom, there is no reason for a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Let'srun (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Johnny Gaudreau#Death per nom. Definitely no need to provide an article that has fewer details than the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abayima

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 06:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Merge with Jon Gosier: Plenty of sources, but no sustained coverage. All the coverage is in the context of their "Open SIM Kit" after they got funding from the Knight News Challenge in January 2013, but it seems like the project fizzled out pretty quickly. Most coverage is from January. The latest source I could find was from August 2013. This source is a trade publication, which should be given less weight due to WP:TRADES. Their GitHub repo was last updated in September 2013. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete : Fails WP:ORG and lacks SIGCOV.Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Also, Soft Deletion is not possible because there is an argument to Merge this article and it also has been PROD'd before.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Izin Akioya

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

The subject does not seem notable enough to meets WP:GNG or WP:SNG as there's limited information about her achievement or works. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely nothing makes this pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass any notability Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional crap. She doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC and her companies and book aren't notable.Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This fails WP:GNG; sources are promotional and not independent. Moopaz (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no valid secondary sourcing to prove any notability. They also list BellaNaija as a source so that it makes it an auto delete for me. Mamani1990 (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There’s no real evidence of notability here, it’s just promotional content. The article doesn’t meet GNG. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Source

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

It fails WP:CORP and its features in 1 episode of Music Moguls or in Forbes 30 Under 30 in Manufacturing in 2018 and Apparel Magazine's Top Under-30 Elite in 2018 aren't enough for notability Ynsfial (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Fashion, and United States of America. Ynsfial (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia_Akanga

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cynthia Akanga

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

I believe Cynthia_Akanga fails the WP:GNG criteria. Person has brief bios on both linkedin and imdb but very little independent coverage. SallyRenee (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Africa, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find any reliable source to establish notability most sources are primary and IMDb FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the relevant guideline is WP:ENTERTAINER. It says that the person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple television shows or stage performances. Akanga has had multiple roles, two to be exact: a stage performance and a role in a television show. Wikipedia does not have a lot of articles about Togolese women. Conscious of the WP:Systemic bias, I vote keep. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can you share the source(s) for these performances?

In general, WP:ENTERTAINER does not override WP:BASIC. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud Buitelaar and per WP:ENT. She had significant roles in multiple notable productions. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She had an appearance on a podcast and was a substitute jury for an obscure show. What notable productions? FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:41, 5 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!} 06:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The French sources are the same as the ones used here, only confirming she was a judge on a TV show, not unlike American Idol is. I don't think that's enough for notability. They are simple "meet the celebrity" articles. Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - terrible sources; only two shows are not multiple shows. One of the shows she appeared is a reality television show; we don't have articles on jurors or those who don't place in the top three. Her 15 minutes of fame was in 1998. I'm aware of systemic bias, but we have deleted lots of articles about White and male contestants, too, like Tyler Neasloney. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I insist. I have added a few more references. Akanga was choreographer for Cirque du Soleil and Circo Price. She choreographed shows in Israel and Spain.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot vote twice! FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is OK by me, @FuzzyMagma, to strike out my vote, but please note that after @Liz relisted the AfD to generate a more thorough discussion, I found new information and references. I think that part at least you should not strike out. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. I amended my edit above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I voted Keep yesterday, on the basis that she had been a choreographer for Cirque du Soleil, Circo Price, Cirque Zumba Zumba, Illusia. However, doing a web search on "Cirque du Soleil" and Akanga shows that she was one of five assistants to the choreographers in 2013, a year before she claimed to have been a choreographer with them. Searching for "Notre-Dame de Paris" and Akanga shows that she was a dancer in that show, not a lead role or a choreographer. So we are left with choreographing Illusia for Imagination Circus in Israel, and Pasión sin puñales for Teatro Circo Price (and co-choreographing at least one other show for them). WP:CREATIVE requires that "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" . It's not clear that the shows she choreographed are significant or well-known, or have multiple reviews, so I don't think she meets that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being thorough. I took the sources at face value FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki version history

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has absolutely no reason to exist. It's an unsourced duplicate of mw:Release notes and mw:Version lifecycle. The "notable changes" column is entirely original research. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Those looking for the release history can just visit MediaWiki. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Looking at the 1st AfD, I would say MediaWiki was limited in 2012. It has greatly expanded since then with the dedicated wiki (and other Wiki services) easier to access. There's a detailed log of their version updates. – The Grid (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki.org has been around since 2004. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally feel well-versed enough to evaluate this article/AFD nomination and thus don't have an opinion on it; however, if consensus is that this article shouldn't be kept, my view is that it could be redirected to MediaWiki#History or MediaWiki#Version history as an {{R from subtopic}} (the latter of which is currently only one sentence long, but could potentially be expanded with properly-sourced content) as an alternative to deletion. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 12:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

India naming dispute

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

There are various disputes over this name and have been sufficiently covered with Names of India.

This subject fails WP:GNG on its own and article is just an expansion of a POV and involves use of mostly unreliable sources. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Pakistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Merge with Names of India. The article looks like a WP:POVFORK but it has possibility. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Names of India as above. Upon further review as the AfC reviewer, this should be merged as it is a WP:POVFORK. I want to maintain that this article more than likely fulfils GNG, but should be deleted due to other parts of the deletion policy EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 20:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and put a fork in this fork. Bearian (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Necrofauna

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

This page is horribly outdated and has not been updated since 2017 outside of bot edits. It still treats de-extinction as a far future hypothetical event when there have been numerous successful de-extinctions since then such as the Judean date palm, tsori, aurochs, Montreal melon, and Floreana giant tortoise. The term is also not widely used outside of one book, and everything discussed on the page is mentioned on or can be mentioned on the main de-extinction page. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 04:44, 6 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 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to suggest keep because the subject is notable, but since the article at De-extinction basically covers the same ground and is much better, I'd have no objection to converting Necrofauna to a redirect to De-extinction. We wouldn't really even need necrofauna were it not for the book. Elemimele (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The necrofauna page is also HORRBILY outdated, as it refers to de-extinction as a far future hypothetical. That would be like if pages about AI or NFTs still treated them as far future hypothetical technologies, which is obviously not the case in 2025 for de-extinction, AI, and crypto. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since citation 8 is (embarassingly) the only one of the 8 sources that even mentions the term (and then in passing), I don't see the need for even a redirect. Reywas92^Talk 16:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the reasoning. "Necrofauna" is not a widely accepted nor recognised term while de-extinction is. Britannica and Oxford English have entries for de-extinction, but not necrofauna. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above discussion. No problem with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to De-extinction. As a published author of a book on de-extinction, however, I just want to note to the nominator that backbreedings are not usually considered true de-extinctions :) --cyclopia ^speak! 17:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect, the term doesn't seem to be notable based on a quick search. I also looked through some of the citations that have been used on page and didn't see the term mentioned in the sources as well. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of extinct species. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personal wiki

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of wiki software with no useful salvageable value.

The section "Multi-user wiki software" lacks any useful inclusion criterion - MediaWiki (the software that this wiki runs on) does not have a "personal edition" in any reasonable sense. Yes, it's configurable enough you can use it for a lot of things, but the standard for when that would be would be entirely arbitrary. Most of the remaining entries do not have any mention of personal wikis in their article.

The section "Single-user wiki software" is almost entirely duplicated at List of wiki software#Personal wiki software.

The rest of this article is just a trivial definition of the concept - "a personal wiki is a wiki for personal use". And that's it. Delete or redirect to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software (since an individual instance of a personal wiki is by definition a complete nonentity with no existence outside of that of its sole user the software is the only significant bit). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is probably broader cleanup work needed in the broader area of: Personal wiki, Personal information manager, Personal knowledge base, Personal knowledge management, and the inevitable Digital garden. Presumably some or all of these are the same concept with terminology changing over time. Brandon (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable information with multiple references. Dujo (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So no actual refutation to my multi-paragraph AfD rationale? Just WP:VALUABLE and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The mere existence of little blue clickly linky numbers from over a decade ago can't stop this from being cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software as suggested in the nomination. I agree with everything in the nomination rationale, and I can’t find sufficient sourcing to rework the article so that it isn’t a redundant fork. The Keep vote above contains textbook examples on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and I’m also dubious whether the Keep voter read the nomination at all. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of wiki software#Personal wiki software: The content *is* useful, enough people try to make wikis about personal topics or themselves that there clearly is an interest (hell, I've toyed with the idea myself!) but I don't think it warrants a seperate article on it without more content, and I don't think more content can realistically be added here. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avani Soni

AfDs for this article:

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

The actor is not notable. Most of the sources in the article are promotional/PR sources. The consensus on previous AfD was delete because it was non-notable and created by PR agency. Coderzombie (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Gujarat. Coderzombie (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has nothing to pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR. Casting and special thanks credits are not acting or directing credits and her cameo is insignificant.Ynsfial (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is notable as a casting director working in multiple films, not as an actor. The last AFD was 5 years back! which is not a valid reason for consideration. Justort (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Today i am unable to see any significant work that could meet WP:NACTOR. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Smith

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

Non-notable former college basketball player (only appeared to play off the bench for ~3 seasons). Fails WP:GNG as notability WP:NOTINHERITED from Chris Christian (father). Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, Basketball, and Texas. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. Was unable to find anything of significance during a search og Google and Newspapers.com. Her basketball career doesn't indicate any likelihood of her having received any significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, fails significant coverage criteria and, as has already been pointed out above, notability is not inherited so who her father is does not matter for these purposes
Shrug02 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Women 2–3 Wolfsburg Women

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

The subject of this article does not meet WP:NSPORTSEVENT (the specific notability guideline for a single match) nor any general notability guidelines. This is because it is not an individually notable match in itself, as just one of a series of knockout games in regular competition, and because it does not appear to have much media coverage that is not WP:ROUTINE. It therefore does not meet any of the four criteria for NSPORTSEVENT, and the lack of non-primary sourcing prevents it from meeting GNG. Kingsif (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Still holds the record as the match with the biggest attendance in women's club football on English soil. I added some non-routine coverage. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lyndis Parlour: The sources you have linked (without actually adding any article content, just the sources) are, top to bottom: a non-RS that is a player interview mentioning the game in passing (see SIGCOV), an Arsenal fan blog than lauds the game's attendance (see SPS), and a simple list of match attendance figures (see DATABASE). None of these are suitable for use in the article (which I think you actually know, just putting them in as external links), let alone establishing notability. Kingsif (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. I was waiting for someone to try and present notability-establishing sources; the article's advocate has made an attempt but seems to know they can't. Kingsif (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Football, Germany, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This match is very notable and represents a historic moment in the history of women's football in England. This is also reflected in the links and references provided with the article that comment from a range of reputable sources. The article was written to detail the history and to provide information about the game both from UEFA, media outlets and players to provide historical context to the events that occurred. I have now added even more links. This game is far more significant than any standard game of football and any consideration that is isn't suggests that that person is not well informed on women's football - a chronically underreported sport and poorly represented on Wikipedia. Which of the reference sources from itv, ESPN, the Guardian, the New York Times, and BBC sport aren't considered notable by @Kingsif? As noted in this "Some games or series are likely or almost certain to be considered notable, including but not limited to the following:" the list given are just examples. In the history of Women's football, this game is a match of note. The coverage alone makes that clear. The quotes from the players about the match also made that clear but they were deleted from the article. Notability is often so subjective with articles on this platform and too many people have an agenda to devalue perfectly notable articles because of their subject matter. Perhaps @Kingsif is not familiar with what is considered routine coverage at this point in time in the women's game to note the difference. Evmoon (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have any sources that say the match either represents a historic moment in the history of women's football in England or is far more significant than any standard game of football. UEFA match reports, and match reports from RS outlets, are still WP:ROUTINE coverage, which I implore you to actually read and understand before asserting that others don't know what routine coverage is. What you personally think is notable is not the same as Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

Stop with the bad faith accusations. There is a difference between making sure we create and maintain N-compliant articles focused on women's topics and (something too many people try to do now:) making stubby articles about non-notable women's topics just to boost the quantity without care for quality, overall harming the intention of gender parity in Wikipedia coverage.

As this discussion is about N-compliant sources, I will assess the sources you have added. These three; two for saying the match was the first time Arsenal W.F.C. had sold out the main stadium (TBF, a logical assumption) - one of these being a press release from the club itself (see PRIMARY) - and the other a passing mention that due to ticket sales in this and other matches, the main stadium would continue to be used. Look, I am sure it is possible to find the minimum of three non-routine, non-SPS, SIGCOV, RS sources about the match if you really try. The question is to ask yourself: does this a standalone article warrant. Or is the actual notable content that can be gleaned from those sources simply better suited as a "they set the attendance record for a women's club football game in England and sold out the Emirates" mention at the 2022–23 Arsenal W.F.C. season article. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that's it's the best attended women's football match in England would be a reason to mention that in a list article about attendences if one existed. However, it does not make the match itself automatically notable as some people above are trying to do. No WP:SUSTAINED coverage, so doesn't need a separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FYI List of women's association football attendance records - which actually shows that two more recent club matches in England had larger attendance, too. The record is currently held by Chelsea F.C. Women and Manchester United W.F.C. Kingsif (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet WP:NSPORTSEVENT nor WP:GNG due to a lack of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources to demonstrate the coverage. It is also worth noting that there is not a black and white rule for the specific notability guideline for a single match (WP:NSPORTSEVENT). Considering the historic lack of coverage of some topics over others, careful judgement must be used when considering impact. Such a sporting event should be considered in the context of the competition it is in (this case the UWCL), the history of the sport/the event/ and the country it occurred in. In this case this match represented a record for the club, the competition in the UK and an attendance record in the UK for all of Women's football at the time it occurred. It was a significant event that had consequences for subsequent matches and the business of women's football beyond this period. The additional source demonstrate the widespread acceptance by main stream sources at the significance of this record. Evmoon (talk) 23:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your "additional sources" were both published on or before (The Guardian's quote piece) the day the match was played, so I don't know where you get the boldness to say they demonstrate widespread acceptance by main stream sources at the significance that was beyond this period. One of them just quotes the manager saying it's great they sold out, and the other is yet another match report. And please stop using AI to write your replies. You keep saying there's nothing cut-and-dry about NSPORTSEVENT, and yet even before the "it should be a final or incredibly notable" list, the guideline outright says coverage needs to be WP:SUSTAINED no matter what. I only keep replying because you do not bring sources in this discussion for them to be judged, it'd be easier for us both if you did. Kingsif (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I must say the rudeness on this platform is quite astounding. The barriers to contribute are high and people are mean. Nothing on this page has been made up and AI was not used to write the reply. You really need to check your assumptions. Every example you give is still a subjective metric. Evmoon (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non-routine coverage for more than a week is not a subjective metric. This is not the place to discuss how you've been prompted to understand notability guidelines for four years but it's not mean or rude to criticise a lack of attempt in that department. Kingsif (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Fails both WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. One of a number of matches that held attendance records for a relatively short while. I don't see any evidence that it was a significant event that had consequences for subsequent matches and the business of women's football beyond this period but rather it was an illustration of the rapid increase in popularity of womens football. --John B123 (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – For all the arguments above. The match itself is only valid as a reference for the audience record, but it does not support WP:GNG for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puppy love

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

As noted in a message on the page, 'This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic.' The article contains a non-dictionary definition and characteristics of puppy love, a sub-article on puppy love in China related to China's marriage age laws, and statistics which do not mention puppy love of Taiwan, China and the United States. Though the article has existed for a long time, it is still rated as 'Start-class' on Wikipedia's content assessment scale (see the Talk page). The article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignemnt between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023, and yet is still rated as a 'Start-class'. There was a requested move on 9 February 2023. The article is not encyclopedic in nature, and is minimally informative, I'd recommend deleting it. Re34646 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is definitely in poor shape, but I think the concept of 'puppy love' or a 'crush' is fairly trivially notable. The article cites plenty of sources in gender/sexuality studies, literary studies, and adolescent medicine, and I have no doubt at all that there are many, many more sources out there discussing the idea of childhood/adolescent infatuation. A lot of the material on China does need to be cut or slimmed down, but I don't think the article is anywhere near bad enough for this to be a case of WP:TNT. MCE89 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MCE89. Short of a disaster, which this isn't, AfD is not for editing fixes. Literally hit songs, films, and books have been created on this topic. Bearian (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Heiberger

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

Not seeing genuine evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. A couple of brief interviews, but the rest are PR, non-independent, or passing mentions. Seems like a run of the mill businessman. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and New York. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, a non-notable person. Re34646 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with deletion, the most notability-instilling source cited is a NYT "30-minute interview" but that was part of a series of short interviews of "prominent developers, brokers, property managers and builders in New York commercial real estate", which is a specifically narrow scope and to me does not indicate that the subjects of those interviews are necessarily notable enough for WP:GNG (and is maybe even borderline non-WP:IS). Jokullmusic 05:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion. This person is not notable. I would also add that it seems likely this page was originally created by Andrew himself (or a friend) as the only contributions by the original user are related to Andrew Heiberger. WP:AUTO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Craycraytevana — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWingsuit (talk • contribs) 07:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- probably self-created promotional page, subject fails notability criteria, only main space links to the page are List of University of Michigan alumni, List of University of Michigan business alumni, List of University of Miami School of Law alumni. BabelStone (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there were a number of social media posts today tying the article subject to a person who complained about New York congestion pricing. See, e.g.,[23]. No idea if this will get any news coverage (not saying it should). Oblivy (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage has begun:

NY Post, quotes and brief discussion of article subject [24]
Daily Mail, about him, coverage of the online skewering [25]
Jalopnik, about him, on the online skewering [26]

Oblivy (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do not believe he's notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Ueutyi (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, article looks like a puff piece. Kiran_891 ^(TALK) 18:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a non-notable individual and probable vanity page. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this seems like a vanity page and both the creator and the major contributor to this page only have activity related to this one individual associated with their accounts. The major contributions were added from a random IP address. Finally, being interviewed on the news doesn't make a person notable, otherwise my neighbor would have his own article.Photovolts (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikt Johannes Hofer

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

Non-notable person. None of the sources are reliable (tiiny.site is user-generated), and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and Germany. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete: previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Benni; doesn't this qualify for some speedy deletion criterion? Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG, could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Needs sources that are reliable and independent. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - cross wiki promo spam by globally locked sock farm see file here. Many times placed via the "name game" also on this language version as Benedikt Hofer, Draft:Gaming_Benni, Gaming Benni and Coden mit Benni. This sock even created a fake ai-generated user page with nonsense. Hoyanova (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this sock puppet player is also known in dewiki, see de:Wikipedia:Checkuser/Anfragen/Jurist2109,_DerTischFan1111. --Mary Joanna (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Lent-Koop

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

Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV on this player. Everything that comes up, both in searches and in the references, is either WP:LOCAL or databases/signing announcements. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Taiwanese sentiment

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

Insufficient WP:RS here to merit a stand-alone article Amigao (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Taiwan. Skynxnex (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Putting aside cross-Strait relations and Taiwanese independence, the sources that I could find don't seem to suggest that anti-Taiwanese discrimination is a sufficiently distinct phenomenon from anti-Chinese or anti-Asian racism to merit a separate article. On the other hand, nationalist/anti-Taiwanese independence sentiment in mainland China is certainly a notable thing, and I did find some sources discussing the ways in which anti-Taiwanese independence rhetoric can feature outright negativity towards Taiwanese people and culture (e.g. see [27] and [28]). But I'm not convinced that there's enough coverage of that specific sentiment to merit a separate article, and I think it's probably better discussed in the context of wider Chinese nationalism and Chinese unification. MCE89 (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a more thorough search of Chinese language sources and I think there’s probably enough to keep this article. The problem is that the article takes pains to distinguish anti-Taiwanese sentiment from anti-Taiwanese independence sentiment (which seems to be a distinction that is made in the literature as well), so the broader fact that China wants to invade Taiwan — while obviously notable — is probably outside the scope of this article. But there are a number of Chinese-language sources about anti-Taiwanese sentiment (反台), mostly in the context of China denying that it exists or asking its citizens to stick to anti-Taiwanese independence rhetoric without being anti-Taiwan ([29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]). So I think those debates about the extent to which online Chinese nationalist discourse features anti-Taiwan rhetoric make this notable. I've also gone and expanded the article with some of those sources. MCE89 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. With your additions, I think this can now be kept per WP:HEY. - Amigao (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The people of Taiwan have their own unique politics and culture. Hence, this page is just as legitimate as such pages for many other countries (this is not necessarily about the "race"). In particular, the well-known plans by the People's Republic of China to occupy Taiwan is a part of this "sentiment". My very best wishes (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No fundamental disagreement with your points, but the page itself lacks WP:PRECISION. Your points relate more specifically to opposition to the Taiwanese independence movement as well as Chinese unification rather than a more vague anti-Taiwanese "sentiment". - Amigao (talk) 21:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Taiwanese go abroad (outside of China), they fear the pro-PRC Chinese community within the Asian community, which is often discriminated against and abused. Anti-Taiwanese discrimination/racism exists separately from anti-Asian or Chinese racism. Similar article: Anti-Tibetan sentiment ProKMT (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ProKMT, it would be good to see some statements with WP:RSes in the article on precisely that point. - Amigao (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with MCE89 here. This is a significant phenomena and there are sources. Fulmard (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Technology Development Center

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and Georgia (U.S. state). Imcdc Contact 02:07, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I found two independent sources ([35], [36]) and added them to the article, but I'm not sure about reliability and the first one seems pretty promotional. I'd be more confident if someone could find another piece of coverage that isn't connected to the ATDC or Georgia Tech. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to try another relisting before considering closing this discussion as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rachid Ghanimi

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been rejected as a draft and deleted already. This its third incarnation, and I still can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this player. The player still appears to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLYMPICS. It was deleted as WP:TOOSOON but then he won an Olympic medal. St Anselm (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't searched for sources yet, but note that he passes WP:NOLYMPICS as a medalist at the 2024 Summer Olympics; he'd be the sole 2024 medalist without an article, I think, if deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note the French article has 26 references - we can safely assume there are lots of sources in Arabic. This is precisely why we have WP:NOLYMPICS. St Anselm (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Haven't done a comprehensive review of the Arabic sources, but the references I viewed didn't contain any WP:SIGCOV of Ghanimi specifically. While the subject was on the team for the Olympics and won a medal, he didn't appear in any matches from what I can tell. Still undecided here. Let'srun (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Let'srun (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This time is enough WP:SIGCOV to estabilish the article. Svartner (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above. Shmego (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above which show notability. Giant Snowman 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Passes WP:NOLY. - The9Man ^Talk 14:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are so many resources in English, but pass WP:NOLYMPICS Oloriebi234 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Information Processing Society of China

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

Looks to be almost entirely self-promotional in nature. Amigao (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Computing, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to eliminate or reduce the tone. Ctxz2323 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Qian, Duoxiu (2023) [2014]. "Translation Technology in China". In Chan, Sin-wai (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Technology (2 ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. p. 308. ISBN 978-0-367-76736-5. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "There are many active participants in the research and development of machine translation (MT) and CAT. One leading organization is the Chinese Information Processing Society of China (CIPSC; www.cipsc.org.cn/index.php). It was established in June 1981, its mission being to develop methods for processing Chinese with the aid of computer technology, including automatic input, output, recognition, transfer, compression, storage, concordance, analysis, comprehension, and generation. This is to be done at different linguistic levels (character, lexical, phrasal, sentential, and textual). The field has developed into an interdisciplinary subject area in a very robust way with collaborative work by scholars from fields like philology, computer sciences, artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, and mathematics. This organization has been in close contact with the outside world, playing a very active role in the world MT-Summits."
2. Yan, Yiming 颜逸明; Yin, Binyong 尹斌庸 (2002). 语文现代化论文集 [Collection of Papers on the Modernization of Chinese Language] (in Chinese). Beijing: Commercial Press. p. 141. ISBN 978-7-100-03535-4. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1981 年,以钱伟长为理事长的中国中文信息学会成立。中文信息学会及所属的汉字编码专业委员会、《中文信息学报》《中文信息》等杂志成为组织交流汉字编码的理论的场所和媒介。1981 年至今中文信息学会、汉字编码委员会召开国际性、全国性学术会议 10 余次,发表的国内外论文和公布编码方案约在 1000 份以上,申请专利超过 200 件,上机运行的也有近百种。"
  From Google Translate: "In 1981, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China, chaired by Qian Weichang, was established. The Chinese Information Processing Society of China, along with its affiliated Character Encoding Committee, the Chinese Journal of Information and Chinese Information magazines, became venues and mediums for organizing and exchanging theories on Chinese character encoding. From 1981 to the present, the Chinese Information Processing Society and the Character Encoding Committee have held more than 10 international and national academic conferences, published over 1,000 domestic and international papers, and released encoding schemes. More than 200 patents have been applied for, and nearly 100 encoding systems have been implemented in machines."
3. Zhang, Pu 张普 (1992). 汉语信息处理研究 [Research on Chinese Language Information Processing] (in Chinese). Beijing: Beijing Language and Culture University Press. p. 231. ISBN 978-7-5619-0211-0. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1981 年,正式成立了中国中文信息学会,推举钱伟长教授为第一任理事长,学会下专设了一个“汉字编码专业委员会” ,专攻汉字键盘输入技术。 1983 年,中国中文信息学会与联合国教科文组织在北京联合召开“中文信息处理国际研讨会” ,仅在会议同时举办的“计算机中文信息处理展览会”上,就展出了 15 个省市 34 个单位的 38 项成果,展期销售成交额 1078 万元。这个成绩不只受到联合国教科文组织欧沃拉比先生及国内外观众的赞赏,也使盯着中国这一庞大市场的国外各大计算机公司大吃一惊,他们没想到中国的步子迈得这么快、"
  From Google Translate: "In 1981, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China was formally established, and Professor Qian Weichang was elected as the first chairman. The society set up a "Chinese Character Encoding Professional Committee" to specialize in Chinese character keyboard input technology. In 1983, the Chinese Information Processing Society of China and UNESCO jointly held the "International Symposium on Chinese Information Processing" in Beijing. At the "Computer Chinese Information Processing Exhibition" held at the same time as the conference, 38 achievements from 34 units in 15 provinces and cities were exhibited, and the sales turnover during the exhibition period was 10.78 million yuan. This achievement was not only praised by Mr. Owolabi of UNESCO and domestic and foreign audiences, but also surprised major foreign computer companies that were eyeing the huge Chinese market. They did not expect China to move so fast,"
4. Liang, Qinghai 梁清海; Man, Hing-wu 文兴吾; Lam, Tsz-hing 林子卿 (1992). 当代中国科学技术总览 [Overview of Contemporary Chinese Science and Technology] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Science and Technology Press [zh]. p. 319. ISBN 978-7-5046-0862-8. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "1981 年 6 月成立。由钱伟长、中国中文信息学会甄建民、安其春、李金铠等人发起。宗旨是:团结广大科技工作者,繁荣发展我国科学技术事业,促进科学技术的普及和推广,促进科技领域出成果、出人才;为振兴经济,促进两个文明建设,加速实现我国社会主义现代化做贡献。该会设有土地利用、地籍管理、土地复垦、土地经济、建设用地、土地信息与遥感、土地法学等专业学术组织。出版刊物《中国土地科学》。 1988 年以来,先后与香港测量师学会、英国皇家特许测量师学会、国际测量师联合会、香港房地产建筑业协进会筹建立了联系。该会隶属中国科学技术协会,挂靠国家土地管理局;会址:北京市海淀区大柳树北村 25 号;邮政编码: 100081 。"
  From Google Translate: "Founded in June 1981. Initiated by Qian Weichang, Zhen Jianmin, An Qichun, Li Jinkai and others from the Chinese Information Processing Society of China. Its purpose is to unite the vast number of scientific and technological workers, prosper and develop my country's science and technology, promote the popularization and promotion of science and technology, promote the production of scientific and technological achievements and talents; to contribute to the revitalization of the economy, the promotion of the construction of two civilizations, and the acceleration of the realization of my country's socialist modernization. The association has professional academic organizations such as land use, cadastral management, land reclamation, land economy, construction land, land information and remote sensing, and land law. It publishes the journal "Chinese Land Science". Since 1988, it has established contacts with the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the International Federation of Surveyors, and the Hong Kong Real Estate and Construction Industry Association. The association is affiliated to the China Association for Science and Technology and is affiliated to the State Land Administration; the address is No. 25, Daliushu North Village, Haidian District, Beijing; the postal code is 100081."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Chinese Information Processing Society of China (simplified Chinese: 中国中文信息学会; traditional Chinese: 中國中文資訊學; pinyin: Zhōngguó Zhōngwén Xìnxī Xuéhuì) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Purposes and activities" section is sourced to the the subject's website and could be considered to contain promotional wording. I consider the rest of the article to be largely neutral. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding.

Different sources and citations have been added, with the content edited accordingly. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references presented are good. - The9Man ^Talk 07:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yutong Group

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

No indication of notability using WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Yutong, this new article does not provide any additional context or knowledge that cannot be put in the Yutong article. Jumpytoo Talk 05:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Yutong as this article is about the same topic as Yutong and providing a small amount of additional information that could be merged to Yutong. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nothing indicates this qualifies for a standalone page under NCORP. Obvious UPE. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Yutong as per the others. Mr.choppers | ✎ 01:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Randolph

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

The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV that I could find is this, but it is from the student newspaper of one of his colleges, and it was published while he was a student at UNC–Wilmington. So it is WP:LOCAL. As a result, this player appears to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This player made a professional debut, had a notable college career, and has just extended his contract with his current club. I feel like deleting this would be unfair. Shmego (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NSPORTS2022, making a professional debut is meaningless toward notability and so is a college career. Anwegmann (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't participating in said discussion, but have to say the reason to reject automatic notability is because not all generations of football players receive significant coverage, even if they play(ed) at professional level. This might be just a theory. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad theory, and I think you're right, but it doesn't change the fact that a player simply making his/her professional debut without accompanying WP:SIGCOV fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Professional debut is irrelevant. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Monroe (soccer)

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

This player appears to fail WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Everything I could find was either passing, "local" by his college, club, or league, or database/signing announcement—nothing of significant, meaningful coverage. Anwegmann (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miche-Naider Chéry

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

Several searches have not uncovered any WP:SIGCOV of this player. None of the sources cited in the article meet those standards as well. This player, then, seems to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Haiti. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is coverage from fox sports not enough coverage? Shmego (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is just video of his goals in one match because it was an upset by his team over an MLS club, not WP:SIGCOV about him. So no, it is nowhere near enough. Anwegmann (talk) Anwegmann (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman not sure if this qualifies for WP:SIGCOV but this: Chery on target as Violette make history vs. Austin FC comes from the CONCACAF website and details his goals and performance in one game. Only problem is, it's one game Shmego (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not SIGCOV to me. Giant Snowman 21:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. MisterWizzy (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Glasser

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

Am I missing something here? I can find a lot of announcements and "local" coverage, either from USL, FC Naples, or UC Davis, but there doesn't seem to be any WP:SIGCOV on this player. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but still seems to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify/Merge - I had created Draft:Max Glasser back in 2023 (relevant to this discussion it was moved back to draft space in March 2023) but no one had edited it since August 2024. It seems that the creator of this article may have missed the draft article, so while this version we're commenting on can't technically be moved back into the draft space as it didn't exist there previously as far as I can tell, I do think that merging this draft with the preexisting one to be fleshed out with more content and most importantly more independent sources would be for the best. Christiangamer7 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support draftifying this article. Shmego (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 20:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Per above. Svartner (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Per above, not yet notable and there is a draft already. CNC (talk) 09:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Creek

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

I can't seem to find any WP:SIGCOV on this player. Perhaps it's a matter of WP:TOOSOON, as he is in the beginning of his career and has seen the field a few times, but right now, he seems to fail WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Missouri. Shellwood (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Tu Tambien

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

Created by a single purpose editor and marked for notability concerns 10 years ago. 12 of the 18 sources are Facebook, the other sources do not cover this organization in detail. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and New York. LibStar (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found this [37], but it doesn't appear independent. All other sources I found were either connected to Columbia or were blogs. Massively promotional anyway, would have to be cut down to three sentences to remove all the puffery. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Spain relations

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

Article is based primarily on primary sources. 4 of the 6 sources are the Spanish Foreign Affairs, the 1st source is an embassy website. There is no third party significant coverage of these relations. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belarus, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On a cursory google search, some content can be found in third-party sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

World Institute of Pain

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Still fails WP:ORG. Sole source is a primary source. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Medicine, and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

All-time Tampa Bay Rowdies roster

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

Subject appears to lack notability under WP:LISTN due to a lack of sourcing. PROD was removed with the claim that this grouping is notable, but no sources have been added since so I'm bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Florida. Let'srun (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable for having a standalone article. Lorstaking (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Halifax train crash

AfDs for this article:

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

This run of the mill crash with zero fatalities does not appear to have the WP:LASTING coverage to meet WP:NEVENT here. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no WP:MINIMIMDEATHS. Accident seems to have comparisons to Hixon. Article appears to need updating (NTSB report?), but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd raised concerns back in 2015 about lasting notability: Talk:2015 Halifax train crash#Notability. If the NTSB released a full report I can't find one. The FRA's Office of Railroad Safety released a perfunctory report: [38]. The report says, in effect, the driver screwed up. Grade crossing accidents, by themselves, are routine. Hixon had outcomes and commemoration. Mackensen (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep "run of the mill crash"es don't leave 55 people injured. Also, as MJRoots pointed out there is not a requirement for deaths in a rail accident. 55 injuries makes this notable on its own. When is the last time a rail accident caused nearly 5 dozen injuries, and it didn't have an article? I stand behind this article. Juneau Mike (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mackensen. It's a fairly ordinary grade crossing accident with no lasting impact. Number of injuries don't determine notability; continued coverage and impact does. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of rail accidents (2010–2019)#2015, where it is already listed. It doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it is kept, it should be renamed to include Halifax, North Carolina in the title to disambiguate from Halifax, Nova Scotia and similar to 2018 Crozet, Virginia train crash - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a bizarre argument. Synopsis: It doesn't make it notable or not if people were killed. But it also doesn't make it notable or not no matter how many injuries were incurred. No matter how this AFD goes, it's one to remember! I stand by my above !vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelh2001 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not making a very strong argument. 55 injuries translates into a single car from the train; it carried I believe six. Per the article: The injured were taken to Halifax Memorial Hospital and Nash General Hospital where most were in good to stable condition. One patient was flown to Vidant Medical Center in Greenville in serious condition. That doesn't sound very serious. You need to explain how this isn't WP:NOTNEWS. Grade crossing accidents happen rather frequently in the United States. You see that from examining List of accidents on Amtrak; plenty of accidents with five dozen injuries--or more--don't have articles. The California Zephyr grade crossing accident that killed six people in 2011 doesn't have article. This article needs to stand and fall on its own merits. There needs to be lasting coverage. Mackensen (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all coverage is from the time of event, and no WP:LASTING coverage or impact. Fails WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, It lacks WP:LASTING Cov, . Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WineGUI

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

PROD removed with insufficient reasoning, just "Stop deleting this wiki page". No notability whatsoever. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All you can find are download links and blog posts, nothing we'd use for reviews or any critical discussion. What's in the article for sourcing isn't helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability GUI, also, the article haves only primary source. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wine_(software)#Third-party_applications, where it is mentioned. मल्ल (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/WineGUI is NOT a primary resource. Danger89 (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per मल्ल. Seems like an easy enough target. Conyo14 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another source: https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/WineGUI Danger89 (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And this is not a primary source, winehq.org is not my server. Danger89 (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this isn't personal, but you shouldn't really be creating articles about your own projects. See: WP:Conflict of interest. You aren't being censored, there just isn't enough independent sourcing right now. मल्ल (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Still I don't agree with this policy. The context is written based on facts. I'm not trying to sell anything, it's free & open source software. And I update the page myself eg. When a new release is out. So the page stays up to date.

The amount of effort in creating well written content takes also time, I don't get paid for anything. Danger89 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, any source that's a download link or the source code would be a WP:PRIMARY source and does not count towards WP:GNG. You would need to find independent reviews or books, to help your case. Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/wikis/WineGUI is not the source :). https://www.winehq.org/ is using gitlab wiki as their new wiki platform. So despite WineHQ is using GitLab, this is their wiki platform, and not a primary source. Danger89 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a primary... Conyo14 (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wine (software) per above Andre🚐 07:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sandwitches

AfDs for this article:

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

Article with no indication of notability or importance. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content here, only infobox. Vitorperrut555 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete This has a good amount of history that dates back to 2011. At the very least, retarget back to Goblin (album) and/or draftify the current content. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 02:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goblin (album) per above. No point in draftifying as this is just an infobox which could be easily recreated and isn't worth saving on its own. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect to Goblin (album): an infobox alone does not an article make, especially since the redirect was itself the result of the previous nomination (and the article obviously had more content then… which still wasn't enough). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goblin (album) - Back in 2014 the song article was redirected to the album, and since then there has been no further coverage of the song in its own right to merit a standalone article. Also note that someone later retargeted the term to sandwich for an unconvincing reason. Yesterday an inexperienced editor reverted the redirect and formed the no-content song article that we see now. There is little likelihood that it can or will be further (re-)developed into a full article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goblin (album), no point of userfying this Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another might be a Redirect to Sandwich^[Humor] Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is looking for info on the lunchtime meal, they are unlikely to accidentally type "sandwitches". Someone who literally types that term is more likely to satisfy their midday hunger for knowledge at the album featuring a song of that title. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon Through Your Speakers

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

Article about an album by a band that doesn't have an article on here. Doesn't establish why this album is notable. LupinOnTheFritz (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can only find links to Discogs and social media. Does not seem to be a notable album from 20 some years ago. No critical commentary, no reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic review is a user review, thus ineligible per RSMUSIC, and I can't say I'm confident in RoughEdge. But both AllMusic and Exclaim! are valid reviews from reliable sources. I don't think it's in as bad shape as claimed above. There's also a mention in this article about the artwork of David Ho which would be worth including if kept. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything else, but for an Interscope release at that time I have to imagine there's more out there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 06:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the cover of the album says Armageddon Through Your Speaker, not Speakers, so the name of the article is incorrect. Still doesn't appear to be very noteworthy based on the sources found for "Speaker" instead of "Speakers". LupinOnTheFritz (talk) 09:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]