Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

23 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 22	January 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

2035 AFC Asian Cup qualification

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Main article for the tournament doesn't even exist yet, and this was created way too early for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Asia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AXS Pte Ltd

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Future in Chains

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

The book described in this Wikipedia article doesn't seem to exist in any relevant libraries; in fact, the article also doesn't discuss or mention anything about the work's publisher. I strongly presume a self-published novel.

Large portions of the article seem to be composed in a non-neutral manner by an LLM. I doubt that the opinions described in the article can be found in any meaningful publications.

The article doesn't cite any reliable secondary sources. Let me present a quick source analysis:

Footnote 1: Refers to Daily Times Nigeria; the text is very obviously LLM-generated, and the author's profile in that source indicates to me that the account (called ada-ada) is used for advertising and promotion. It is not a reliable source.

Footnote 2: Refers to Vanguard News. Same LLM-text as found in FN1; the source includes a disclaimer that reads Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof. Obviously not a useable source.

Footnote 3: (The Nation Newspaper) could possibly be a reasonable source, but I am not sure. Either way, it heavily quotes the subject, and thus, it is not intellectually independent or indicative of notability.

Footnote 4: Despite containing author information, the article is actually posted with a "The Editor" profile, and the text reminds me of something LLM-generated.

Footnote 5: dto. FN 2.

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internal enemy

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

A WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: not sure why every other editor in this discussion is ignoring the sources that are already cited in the article. I hope the closing admin takes that into account. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The very first source devotes a whopping two sentences to the fact that the ancient Greeks categorized internal and external enemies by a different word as an example of the relationship between politics and warfare, namedropping the Republic. Note however that the article does not bother to cite the Republic itself.

Every other source is just describing a fifth column. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column. I don’t see how this article could ever go beyond a definition stub unless it gets overloaded with random examples. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding delete/merge with Fifth Column as suggested by RakdosWitch. Sinclairian (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Can't be Merged to Fifth Column as this page is a redirect, not an article. Please check links before you suggest a page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column for reasons provided by RakdosWitch. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused by the relister's statement that this page is a redirect, not an article. The nominated version certainly isn't a redirect, and I'm not seeing any point in the page history at which it was. Fifth Column is a redirect to Fifth column, but surely any !vote to merge/redirect to the former is really talking about the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantry sells… but who’s buying? Obviously meant Fifth column RakdosWitch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pedantry. Closers work with statements made in a discussion by the participants. If you really meant Fifth column, then check the damn link and make sure you are suggesting the right target article. It's not the closer's job to make sure your comments are accurate or search for the right target. It's forbidden that we impose our own opinion or investigate, we work with what is suggested here by participants. Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it was as obvious as the sky being blue and the grass being green what page I meant, you are being a pedant and allowing a false sense of bureaucratic “rightness” to interfere with a simple AfD. Chill. RakdosWitch (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RakdosWitch, and what should we call editors with 45 edits that try to school users who have been editing for years? Are you evading a block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edit very sporadically because I am more concerned with page construction and meta discussions. I am more of a “lurker” and usually only jump in when it’s something I feel strongly about that I see mentioned elsewhere or that I stumble upon. I don’t see how my edit count is particularly relevant to whether or not it’s pedantic to go into a frothing rage over a bit of capitalization, and I don’t get why a random accusation of block evasion is going to make me think you’re not being a bit overzealous. Not relevant to the deletion discussion though! RakdosWitch (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons already given (primarily DICTDEF). I'm not sure a redirect is even needed. I highly doubt people are searching the term "internal enemy" on Wikipedia. That said, I won't strongly oppose a redirect to Fifth column (there, did I use the right link?) if others think it's warranted rather than it being a redlink. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are substantive sources being offered with which the delete opinions are not engaging: at the moment this looks like a no consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fifth Column. Guys please, be reasonable, these are colloquial expressions which evolved with time. They literally refer to the same concept. A separate page is not needed; a few paragraphs in Fifth Column would suffice. Silvymaro (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don’t know why it’s claimed there was no engagement with the sourcing. I had to go to my library to find a digital copy of that source I discussed earlier to demonstrate how weak it was! RakdosWitch (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

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

This golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, Golf, United States of America, and Oregon. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

Sources
1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."
2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."
3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."
4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.
  This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."
5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.
    The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8

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

Fails WP:NASTRO, SIMBAD show six references which are all catalogues and do not provide significant coverage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of brown dwarfs where it is listed as WISE 1952+7240, an ordinary field brown dwarf. I couldn't find any significant coverage, just the discovery list. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Praemonitus. Svartner (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It might not be possible to redirect the article to the list of brown dwarfs since i recently constrained it to contain only notable entries. If redirecting is needed then redirect it to the List of star systems within 40–45 light-years. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems consensus is redirect, just it still needs a consensus on where it should be redirected to. So far, its either redirect to list of brown dwarfs or List of star systems within 40-45 light-years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting Extinction

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

I see no evidence this passes WP:NORG. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The "Primary Criteria" section in WP:NORG states "presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Multiple references on the page pass this criteria (BBC Video, Guardian, The Sunday Times). Other reputable sources not mentioned on the Rewriting Extinction page (ITV, The Independent) have featured Rewriting Earth (and formerly Rewriting Extinction) and their campaigns.

In the Guardian article and BBC video, Rewriting Extinction is the subject of the piece.

As per the Guardian: "Rewriting extinction: Ricky Gervais joins celebrities creating comics to save species", "Ricky Gervais is the latest celebrity to join an ambitious year-long storytelling campaign called Rewriting Extinction with the launch of a comic called Bullfight." The remainder of the article is a feature on Rewriting Extinction, in the form of an interview with its founder, Paul Goodenough. PersonDoingSomeEditing (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NORG. A google search brought only blogs or websites that talk about the comics they have published. TNM101 (chat) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has changed its name to Rewriting Earth, but is still active. The obvious connection to renowned environmental activists, celebrities and important comic artists lends relevance. The article should be expanded to include current campaigns that have been reported on by the BBC, for example. It can be assumed that further campaigns will follow, as regular work appears to be taking place. Lavendelboy (chat) 09:48, 17 January 2025 (CET)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicola (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary disambiguation, best addressed with hatnote. Gjs238 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen). Not even sure the hatnote is necessary to be honest, but definitely don't think there's any need for a disambiguation page for a local news blog that isn't notable enough to have its own article. MCE89 (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) as an alternate spelling, e.g. Publius Valerius Poplicola, Quintus Pedius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Poplicola (cognomen) per Clarityfiend. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is already redirect Publicola, is not Publicola (disambiguation) an unnecessary disambiguation? Gjs238 (talk)

True. It was titled Poplicola (disambiguation) (which influenced my original !lvote), before I took a closer look and moved it. Deletion is also acceptable, since I also added a hatnote to Publius Valerius Poplicola. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after including the website in the hatnote at the main Publicola article, as I've just done. PamD 14:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is of a non-notable branch of the Jemaah Islamiya. WP:BEFORE search founds nothing that discusses the subject in depth and not merely mention. The only source does not even discuss the group in depth but of that of its leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Maybe a merge with the article about the leader would suffice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but not strongly opposed to a merge. I basically agree with the consensus of the last AfD for this article, where all participants broadly agreed on a weak keep and felt that a merge with Noordin Mohammad Top wasn't a terrible option but that it might not be ideal given that the group continued to exist after his death. That AfD also surfaced quite a few useful sources that indicate some notability (the best probably being [1] [2] [3]), although unfortunately a couple of the other links are now dead or paywalled. In addition to the sources from the last AfD, these books [4] [5] [6] [7] provide some discussion of the group, and a search of "Al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago" on Google Scholar turns up a number of non-trivial mentions from as recently as 2022. To be fair, I'm not able to find anything that goes into a great deal of depth, but I'm inclined to say it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Given that the group existed after he died I agree with the above that it is not a great merge target. We can have a serviceable article on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christer Holloman

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

Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jönköpings AIF

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

Defunct sports club which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Sport of athletics, and Sweden. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-State Police

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

This article is an exercise in WP:OR on the topic of bi-state police agencies, which does not appear to be covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. I cannot find non-primary source material on this subject in Google Scholar, Google Books or any other searches. News results turn up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of police chases across state lines, and search results bring up individual instances (primary sources) of bi-state police cooperation but not secondary coverage of the topic. There's also nothing on the website of the Police Executive Research Forum, a major outlet of secondary research on law enforcement.) In lieu of secondary coverage, the page creator here has cobbled together several examples, based on primary sources (like compact agreements or the agencies' own websites) and sometimes the page creator's own impressions (see "Texhoma doesn't have its official seal posted anywhere, but you can see faint visuals of it on officer uniforms and cars in pictures posted on its official police page on Facebook"). There is no evidence here or elsewhere of the secondary coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article fails WP:NOT by failing WP:NOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Police, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Remove the photos, trim the details, add some bullet points or a table, and rename "List of United States law enforcement agencies with multi-state jurisdiction". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would fail WP:NLIST, since I wasn't even able to find secondary-source discussion of those departments as a group. It would still be an exercise in original research to compose that list. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbride Swifts F.C.

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

Non-notable amateur sports team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Article on same topic was previously deleted (following 2009 AfD which covered a number of clubs playing in regional junior/intermediate/amateur leagues). Article has been tagged for notability/refs since 2012 and for attention since 2022. It has been barely a 30-word sub-stub in all that time. In my own attempt to expand the article (and as part of WP:BEFORE) I cannot find sufficient sources to confirm if the club still exists. All I can find are scarce passing mentions in hyper-local sources in directory-style entries, decade-old ROTM match reports (or two decades for that matter), or this article from nearly 25 years ago about a head butt incident. I cannot find ANY sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic. I can't even find poor or passing mentions to even establish the basic facts (where the club is/was based, when it was formed, if it still exists, if/when it closed, etc). Not even primary ones (no website, no Twitter, no Facebook, nothing). If there aren't sufficient sources to write more than 50 words about this topic, how can we possibly state that GNG is met? Guliolopez (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illewi

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

The only evidence I can find for this place is mentions of its name in the DPLA [8] and Smithsonian [9] [10] [11]. These only situate it as a place in (western) Okpella but give no further information. It doesn't exist in the sources for List of villages in Edo State, which are seemingly comprehensive. Other-language Wikipedia articles shed no further light.

I also haven't found it named on a map. The article for Imiekuri gives a location which is unnamed in Wikimedia Maps and named Imiakebu in Google Maps, with nowhere named Ilewi (or similar) nearby.

The first Smithsonian source I listed show that such a place exists or existed in the area, but I'm not sure that's enough evidence to judge it as a "populated, legally recognised place" per WP:GEOLAND. Ligaturama (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ligaturama (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 17:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felix The Cat Kept On Walking

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

I had redirected this, and would suggest this as the outcome of this AfD. Neither source is significantly about the short film, and no better sources seem available that give this film more than a passing mention or a database treatment in lists of animated shorts or in more general Felix the Cat sources. This, with a short plot summary, is about the most extensive source I could find. In books specifically about Felix it gets nothing but a mention[12] Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

As a song It meets WP:NSONG I would say (the song is notable if it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...This includes published works in all forms", and "all forms" would include advertisements and chinaware and toys and t-shirts and what have you I think, and there are plenty of those (([13]) and some even still today ([14], [15]). and it meets 2 of the 3 supplementary bullet points (which are not proof of notability, but are worth considering and de facto considered pretty much sufficient I think): "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", which they didn't have charts in the 1920s I don't think, but the song was clearly a hit which would have at least made the Hot 100 surely, and "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists", which we have a number of artists notable enough to have their own articles covering it.

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

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

Whether to leave the stuff about the film in a short section at the bottom is a judgement call, something for the article talk page. I would, because they are very likely related. We can't tell the reader that (we don't have proof), but we can present the reader with the data and let her decide for herself. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-Rohilkhand War

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

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mr.Hanes Talk 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiber

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

The article fails WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Products, and Italy. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose, Flash Fiber and FiberCop are two separate companies, and also meet the eligibility requirements. InterComMan (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, article reliance on primary sources like the company website and promotional materials are failing to establish sufficient notability or societal impact. Nxcrypto Message 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEI Club

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

Wholly promotional, failing neutrality and notability standards. Fails WP:ORG. Dubious sources with no editorial oversight and promotional tone. For example, the GQ article says, "the company offers something many have never considered: a coaching system that refines their approach to dating and relationships." The Businessworld article claims, "SEI Club's success is solely because of its exhaustive screening process and high knockback rate." Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shold the press only be negative? why does positive content equate a lack of notability? Are things in this world never "good"? In some cases the "truth" might in fact be positive. 216.15.110.195 (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What negative press are you seeing? It's all positive, or neutral. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: The Yahoo article is fine, GQ doesn't have a listed author... I found this [16], contributor piece but it was "reviewed by editorial staff" so I suppose it's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo article is an interview with their Senior Matchmaker, featuring his direct quotes and WW is straight puffery. Junbeesh (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other two sources are fine I think. Oaktree b (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. gq.co.za and businessworld are usually unmarked paid placement and goofy puffery, with no authors indicated. Yahoo Life is surprisingly written by an actual journalist - usually Yahoo is all redirects to blogs and other junk these days. Most of the Yahoo piece is just uncritical quotes from an interview; not sure that's going to meet the WP:ORG requirement for independence. Unclear on the Dating News site, seems okay. I removed several flat-out blackhat paid placements. Doing a search reveals a tremendous amount of paid placement and vanity publications, including some creepy ones. Also, PR from our friends at "First North Marketing". Overall, just not enough to be notable and I can't get to WP:ORG.Sam Kuru (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cesare Toraldo

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORT due to the lack of any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources being cited in the article (or the corresponding IT WP article) or found in my WP:BEFORE search.

De'prodded by BeannieFan11 with the comment "being recipient of the highest honor for Italian sportspeople as well as a seven-time world championship medalist indicates notability". With all due respect to Beannie, none of this is a reason to keep this article within our PAGs. The Golden Collar is an award given out to roughly a hundred or more people each year, with coverage of it typically just being a listing of all the names (see, e.g., this 2017 report from the Italian Olympic Committee's website) so there's no reason to believe it would have generated significant coverage, particularly since Toraldo received it in 2019 and if it had generated such coverage, it would be available online.

As for being a "seven-time world championship medalist" this is only if you count team events. Toraldo does not inherent the notability of his team. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, and that one person was killed, though tragic, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, United States of America, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a significant accident, described in a well-written and comprehensive article. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the strongest means possible – I'm genuinely surprised by this nomination and I'm puzzled as to whether a WP:BEFORE search was conducted. To address all points:
- Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, and that one person was killed, though tragic, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill.
  - I don't necessarily want to use an argument not based on policy but I think in this case I have to. Using the logic given, we would practically have to delete more than three quarters of aviation occurrences on Wikipedia since they're practically "run-of-the-mill". Hijackings are common, CFITs are common, pilot error is common, maintenance/poor design issues are common, icing is common, training issues are common, etc... You get the point.
  - We don't determine an event's notability simply based on whether the cause is common. We look at what coverage is available and whether or not the event results in lasting effects.
Additionally, a basic Google search and one on Google Scholar already brings up numerous news articles that provide significant and in-depth continued coverage of the event and was the subject of case studies:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11] Some that discuss the lasting effects:^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15] It's pretty clear that this passes WP:GNG, WP:NEVENT, WP:EVENTCRIT, with significant, in-depth, and continued coverage of the accident existing, among with numerous case studies, and demonstrated lasting effects. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note – The following articles have also been nominated for deletion:
National Airlines Flight 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
TAM Airlines Flight 9755 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 20:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you addied this note here? Doesn't each proposal have to be judged on its own merits? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Haag, Matthew; Salam, Maya (20 April 2018). "On Southwest 1380, Confusion and Distraction as Oxygen Masks Dropped". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Zhang, Benjamin (20 April 2018). "Here's what happened on the fatal Southwest Airlines flight". Business Insider. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Healy, Jack; Hauser, Christine (18 April 2018). "Inside Southwest Flight 1380, 20 Minutes of Chaos and Terror". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Negroni, Christine (19 April 2018). "Engine on Southwest Jet Not the Only One to Develop Cracks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Levin, Alan (19 April 2018). "Metal Weakness in Southwest Jet Tests Limits of Safety Inspections". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ "Southwest Flight 1380: What Happened Onboard". The Wall Street Journal. 26 April 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Koenig, David; Lauer, Claudia (14 November 2018). "Hearing reveals chilling details of fatal Southwest flight". The Associated Press. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Goyer, Isabel (13 December 2019). "Engine Explosion Cause Found: NTSB Final Report On Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". Plane & Pilot Magazine. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ C. Kemp, Alexandra; Dalal, Jahnavi; Tassawar, Usama; Lu, Chien-Tsung (1 January 2021). "Safety Analysis of Uncontained Engine Failure-Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". International Journal of Crisis Management. 11 (1). doi:10.6929/IJCM.202101_11(1).0002. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Auxier, Eric (24 April 2021). "Southwest Flight 1380: Anatomy of an Inflight Emergency". Airways News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ "Southwest 1380 Archives". Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Josephs, Leslie (19 November 2019). "Boeing commits to NTSB safety fixes on thousands of 737 NG jets after deadly Southwest engine blast". CNBC. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Pimentel, Dan (22 November 2019). "NTSB Issues Seven Recommendations After SWA 1380 Accident". Flying. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Broderick, Sean (20 July 2023). "Boeing Completes 737NG Nacelle Redesign Work | Aviation Week Network". Aviation Week. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
^ Velani, Bhavya (22 July 2023). "Boeing Finishes Redesign of 737NG Nacelles After Southwest Engine Blowouts". Aviation A2Z. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

Keep: Per above. Has WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, definately has lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per above, notability is clear. Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yvon Mariolle

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Only claim to notability is exactly the kind of participation-based notability claim based on wide-sweeping databases that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. Fails WP:NBOX since they were never ranked in the world-wide top ten.

Prod removed by BeannieFan11 with the comment "the source I added contains a story on him, although inaccessible - further, the Olympedia picture is captioned "Champion de France" - a national boxing champion in France absolutely would have coverage in newspapers of the day, and that a search of "'Yvon Mariolle' boxeur" still brings up passing mentions to this day indicates he is virtually certain to have been a notable figure". With the maximum respect for Beannie, a story that no-one can access in which the only thing we know is that possibly the name "Yvon Mariolle" is mentioned, is not a credible claim that significant coverage exists in this case. More is needed for a WP:NEXIST pass than pointing to a source you cannot read. If Mariolle had ever been French champion - and if this was actually something signficant enough to confer notability - this would be mentioned somewhere other than Olympedia.

Additionally the two-paragraph story about the death of Yvon Mariolle's twin brother Marcel is obviously not significant coverage of Yvon. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Boxing Business article isn't a case of "there may possibly be coverage of him" – we know, for a fact, that there's coverage of him there. We know this as Google Books gives a snippet view showing it talks about him on multiple pages and one quote talks about him and says something like "Let's examine his story" – and then it goes into his background. We only get small snippets of the story, but from what we do see, it talks about how he got into the sport, how he then became French national champion in 1965 and retained his title in 1966, and then continues talking about him, but I can't read further than that. Additionally, while the story on his brother is not significant coverage of him, it does indicate his significance (translated): "Marcel was none other than the twin brother of Yvon Mariolle, another boxer from the great era of the noble art of Orléans, selected for the Olympic Games in Mexico in 1968, who had been unable to get into the ring and defend his chances because of a toothache. Marcel, on the night of March 21 to 22, joined Yvon, who had also passed away, in the paradise of champions." The story would not speak so highly of him if he was an insignificant boxer. Given that we know there was at least SIGCOV in Boxing Business, know he was multi-time French national champion, and know that he was still spoken of highly in recent years, and no French newspaper archives were searched ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Gurschler

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

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

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

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

Their source for this could be word-of-mouth, emails from relatives, in-house newsletters and whatever. FOARP (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joppa, Indiana

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

OK, so here we have a weird one. The actual spot consists of a couple of 20th century houses and a garage across the road from one of them. Whether you would call this a town is a matter of opinion. Searching, however, lights up like a Christmas tree, because this spot was the subject of an urban legend which c;ained that there were Spooky Things happening there. The rumors centered around a church which isn't in fact here; it's somewhere in the Clayton-Belleville area. I haven't found its exact location but you can read the story in this local news report, and this one reorting that the building had been burned down for the second time. Of course Google ranks the rumors higher than the debunking but what you gonna do. Anyway, this is a spot on a map, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Baker Hoosier place names book has this as a "village" on page 181. Despite the claimed dates, there's no such Joppa in the 1895 Lippincott's, however, nor in several other gazetteers. Nor does the 1885 History of Hendricks County, Indiana have anything. The Arcadia Publishing book for Plainfield tantalizingly mentions a Joppa Road, but has nothing specific. An 1899 USPS directory lists a Joppa post office in Hendricks; and everything else that I've found only confirms that post office and provides essentially zero information about it, because it's largely contemporary sources giving a postal address. I'm unable to confirm what Baker claims, including the claim to a second Joppa in Hancock County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Hardcore Championship

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay – Added a Cagematch in the external links so hopefully the page should stay. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification complaint, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stay# – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece until it's a non-deleted page like 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B said when it came to the ECCW Vancouver Island Championship non-deletion page argument which whom I agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Vancouver Island Championship

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece. The same with the ECCW Hardcore Championship until their non-deleted pages. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification complaint, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Stay# – I agree with 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B with a lot of things and when it comes to this page. Plus I agree with him when it comes to the ECCW Hardcore Championship page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan H. D.

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

No notable independent wrestler. No in deep coverage from third party sources, just some passing mentions [17] which are WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Wrestling, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources aside from wrestling databases and blogs. Even then, coverage isn't substantial- just mentions that he fought at an event or the fact that he tried out for the WWE. Ultimately, not notable. Jordano^5³ 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf Big Naturals

AfDs for this article:

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

User:Urve raised a concern that the subject is not notable at the DYK nom, and I rather agree. Of the sources present, only the first two (Autostraddle and The Mary Sue) provide significant coverage, and neither seem WP:REPUTABLE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Internet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mary Sue is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. "Original reporting is reliable and original blogging may be appropriate for editorial/opinions, but reblogged content is not." I am uncertain of Autostraddle's reliability, but it seems to fall under PRIMARY since it's an interview with the creator. I'd say both are reputable enough as far as sources go, but only one really seems to count as SIGCOV here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokelego999 the Mary Sue source in question, which includes snippets such as "Gandalf was gifted some massive bananaramadonglehaumers", "Ever since then, Gandalf has been out there shakin’ them thangs for the greater good, and we couldn’t be prouder of him. Not only is this supremely swaggy of him as leader of the wizard community, it’s also aesthetically cool as all hell., and "Godspeed, you beautiful, braless bitch. Godspeed.", seems to fall firmly on the side of "original blogging", which is only "appropriate for editorial/opinions", not notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editorials and opinions are perfectly valid for notability, though? The author is also a member of the site's staff, and not a random blogger, so this wouldn't fall under Wikipedia:BLOG either. I doubt this article is notable either way, but I wouldn't discredit the Mary Sue source entirely. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (neutral on target). I agree with Pokelego999 here. The source doesn't count towards notability given it's mostly commentary from the creator. I might grant that it could be mentioned as a meme somewhere, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. If a good redirect/merge target is found that can contain the info without falling into Wikipedia:UNDUE territory, I'd be willing to go with that, but for now the subject is just non-notable, even with the sources discussed above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect if a decent target is found. As I expressed at DYK, I'm not seeing the requisite amount of substantial, secondary coverage to justify a standalone article. I am somewhat surprised that we don't have a standalone list of Tumblr memes / phenomena article (pinging Theleekycauldron and Generalissima since you might be interested in incorporating some of this article into such a list?); if this is deleted, it can be refunded to redirect there for incorporation and attribution. Urve (talk) 20:53, 23 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. An AFD discussion that started with a keep opinion from the nominator; discussed earlier and closed as redirect, ongoing revert cycle regarding whether it should be a redirect. This is too messy; the correct venue would be to take the first AFD discussion up at WP:DRV. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYCL-TV

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

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios and/or either rebroadcasts multiple services."

Wc2025 (talk) 11:41, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:00, 23 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.

West Superior Invitation

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

No indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[18]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Tennis, United States of America, and Wisconsin. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, it says the Tennis Archives have been cited—they can't lie!~~ Delete per nom unless significant coverage turns up, in which case ping me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cravens

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

I can't see how this university registrar is notable. Registrar is not an inherently noteworthy position, even at a large university, and the article is sourced only to primary sources (references 1-2), an apparently self-published essay (reference 3), and an obituary (reference 4). The essay itself is sourced mostly to the same primary sources (family papers) and various obituaries. Essentially no secondary coverage of this individual, fails WP:NACADEMIC. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Indiana. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like he might pass WP:GNG notability. He had coverage in Indiana newspapers across his life (listed some below). It also looks like he was part of the state legislature from 1899 to 1903. I'm not sure which positions he held, other than as Democratic representative for Monroe and Brown (County?) starting in 1899. - Whisperjanes (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kalyeserye episodes

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

I have a regretting to nominate this but the source was all dead links due to Conflict of TVJ and TAPE Inc.. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep classic case of MOS:TVSPLIT. More than 400+ episodes and the list of more than 300k bytes breaking the 80k bytes threshold for splitting. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity All of the references or let's say half of the references are from YT primary sources are dead. So, there's no way to retrieve some videos from a dead link. ROY is WAR Talk! 13:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Kalyeserye § References § Work cited all of them are dead links. And other ref was dead too. ROY is WAR Talk! 13:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already passes MOS:TVSPLIT, Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, we cannot delete it base on that rationale alone. Plus we cannot merge it back to the parent article as 300k+ bytes is large enough. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DEADLINK is not a reason to delete, but if sources are the episodes themselves, it's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and is a problem. Kalyeserye is not a TV show but a segment of one. The closest analogy is if there's a separate list of Weekend Update "episodes", and we don't do that. There maybe WP:RS about this somewhere; if that's presented, I'd reconsider. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Howard the Duck; a lot of these Filipino TV articles depend on network PR and circular fanlinks rather than any external discussion of the 'shows' themselves, and in this case it's a show within a show that by design isn't meant to be taken seriously, but the 'network stans' have turned the space into just as big a no-go zone as kid's show articles here. Articles based on WP:PRIMARY sources (here to what's now a dead Facebook page); sorry your show is in a deep kind of rights hell but this article is a massive PRIMARY violation (the map alone is unsourced fanon that would even be questioned on a Fandom site and nobody cares about your show hashtags) and should have been sanctioned long ago. Nate • (chatter) 20:27, 23 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 speedy deleted by JBW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalla (name)‌

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

Not notable, created by a sockpuppet DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SOCK guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan, India, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5, the page creator User:Tested account has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:51, 23 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.

Matthew Bell (lawyer)

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

Non-notable lawyer. Plenty of sources were added to the article, but most of them only mention the subject in passing (or not at all). Notability is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, United States of America, and Texas. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ever-growing subject matter of export controls & sanctions. Mr. Bell is a legend. His cases with Weatherford and ZTE were record breaking and he managed a political firestorm that put ZTE as the bargaining chip in the original start of the Trump Trade war. He is one of the best speakers I have ever seen and is connected to nearly everyone in this area of law. Instead of the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon people in the legal & compliance world joke about the 6 degrees of Matt Bell and you usually only need 1 or 2 degrees to connect to him. While I am new the Wikipedia process, I was pleased to see he had an article pop up on here. He has been quoted in numerous news stories and articles that might need to be added as I read more about notability. 64.92.63.94 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Legends" aren't quite the level of sourcing we need, does he have articles written about him directly? Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: PROMO for a lawyer. The sources are more about the legal cases than the individual, I can't find sourcing strictly about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason

Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. They didn't event get all the D3 teams. Smh. Conyo14 (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Conyo. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Castro

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Mercer

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

Notability is not inherited from the company. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not independent of the subject and rely on shallow coverage, a profile and a BIC magazine article dominated by quotes from her. Lacks significant depth beyond passing mentions in secondary reliable sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YoungLA

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Profile listing, non-critical blog, Instagram post, and routine coverage. Lacks significant in-depth secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United States of America, and California. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Morriatti

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Promotional, resume-style article. Sources include an interview with a former Forbes contributor, paid articles masquerading as legitimate, and trivial, non-substantial coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 08:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Even ignoring the tone of the article, all I see when searching for sources are passing mentions, and a single interview. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanel Joseph

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

Fails WP:ENT. A YouTuber with no significant coverage beyond passing mentions and basic profiles. One minor controversy, but insufficient to establish lasting notability. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and Florida. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not quite the level of coverage we need [19]... The first source used in the article isn't aboot this person either. We don't have much left to go on. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC) .[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Stealing someone's food delivery is not funny - it's just theft. Same thing with stealing passenger luggage at an airport. — Maile (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar Chatlani

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

No significant coverage found, the subject fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and other guidelines. Taabii (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Taabii (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

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

Singular instance of an award, should merge to the main article's page, Collier Trophy Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1. BilletsMauves^€500 11:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This same article, with a different title, 2011 Collier Selection Process was deleted via PROD in 2012. Nayyn (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
not sure why it is a "Speedy Keep"? Nayyn (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have not provided a deletion rationale, you are advocating for a merge. AfD is not the right venue for this. BilletsMauves^€500 19:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jenkins

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

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've helped expand the article with additional sources. My view is still to keep and then rename, but if the consensus is that this is not notable enough for inclusion at this time, I would ask that the article be draftified as WP:TOOSOON rather than deleted. This is already a relatively significant international incident and it seems likely to turn into a much bigger one if Jenkins' death is confirmed. If Australia does expel a foreign ambassador for the first time in 12 years, it seems pretty clear that an article on that event would be notable. MCE89 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite a rational position to take compared to simply deleting the article. The very fact of this discussion amongst an international audience confirms that this is a notable event, and the potential to eject the Russian ambassador to Australia from Australia emphasizes an international political importance. Has to questions of Korean soldiers not being similarly highlighted, it certainly is hard to do that when their faces and bodies are burned to hide their identifications. As prisoners the Korean soldiers would have some entitlement to privacy under the Geneva conventions. As corpses there is no such entitlement. When some of those prisoners or corpses are identified, this too is likely to be an event of international significance.

I have to question the relevance of the specific editor calling out an English language article as not relevant. It appears the editor in question may have some biases, and the Wikipedia community should explore that, as well. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will further add that I am a military interrogator.

This story is interesting to me separately, as the available video highlights Russian interrogation techniques, and incompetence in that field. That said, it is likely with the interrogator in the public video is not formally and interrogator, rather simply an officer, in the field. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep or Draftify there's been a blaze of coverage, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to know if he or the incident is truly notable or just news. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MCE89. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MCE89. BilletsMauves^€500 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Per WP:1E, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. The subject did not have a significant role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so a separate article is not warranted.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I entirely agree with you that BLP1E applies here and that this article should be eventified (similar to articles like Execution of Oleksandr Matsievskyi). I don't think anyone is really arguing that Oscar Jenkins himself is notable as a BLP subject, but instead that his capture and possible death are notable per WP:NEVENT. A merge could be an option, but I think the thing that is notable about this event is the international incident between Australia and Russia that it is threatening to spark rather than the fact that he was taken prisoner, so I'm not sure a merge into Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine quite makes sense. MCE89 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic rock (disambiguation)

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

There are no reliable sources talking about the definition of "melodic rock", let alone specifying that melodic rock refers only to a few certain sub-genres. Instead, "melodic rock" is simply rock music with somewhat more melody than usual. It's not a topic, and it's not needed for disambiguation. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Disambiguations. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 06:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a widely used term in sources, seems to be a rare synonym of arena rock. RakdosWitch (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its not related to 2 of the 3 terms listed at the disambiguation page, though as far as I know its somewhat of a synonym for AOR/arena rock --FMSky (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

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

No sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 04:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agreed. I'm not sure how this article was moved out of draftspace to begin with. I don't view it as article-worthy, not without some extra sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hungarian State Railways (MÁV). It's the current form of that company after merging with Volánbusz. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. was formerly known as MÁV-START, which operated under this name from 2006 to 2024 before being renamed. You can find sources from before 2024 by searching for MÁV-START. – balint36 ^{passenger complaints} 23:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tengku Baharuddin

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

I do not see that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of SIGCOV sources means a standalone article violates SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cumbria

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

Only links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Heart ^(talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its outdated as there are now only 2 districts. If kept I will update. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is but one such list, of many. If you delete this one, then it stands that all such un-sourced lists of people should be deleted. Category:Lists of English people by location is but one example. And even more at Category:Lists of people by location. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi

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

Non-notable American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR through roles in Doom Patrol (TV series), Soap Girl, Only the Brave (2006 film), The Nana Project and various Lifetime productions (see page, with a couple of reviews mentioning her cited), at least. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (coverage mentioning her roles include, almost at random https://deadline.com/2021/04/doom-patrol-hbo-max-five-recur-season-3-1234742555/ ; https://collider.com/doom-patrol-season-3-cast-sisterhood-of-dada/ https://www.abookof.us/talent-index/gina-hiraizumi https://www.thewrap.com/vivica-a-fox-new-the-wrong-movies-lmn-lifetime-movie-network/ (only mentioned twice but to verify the roles) https://2paragraphs.com/2020/03/actress-gina-hiraizumi-flaunts-natural-boob-job-in-lacy-bra/ (really not great but indicates 2 other noted roles in popular series) etc ; might also been considered a prolific actress thus meeting WP:NACTOR's second criterion (https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/gina-hiraizumi/credits/3000481836/)[reply]
my signed comment above was expanded by myself (see below) -Mushy Yank. 07:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign and then expanded my comment in the same block, but all right, I'll sign again at the bottom.-Mushy Yank. 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, clearly meet WP:NACTOR Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team

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

College volleyball season with no indication of notability. The sources are all either trivial mentions, at least 1.5 years old, or don't mention the team at all. An online search doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe the team itself warrants an article but even that is not clearly established. I struggle to come up with a scenario where a college sports team's single season warrants a dedicated article. This season does not come close to notability. The content is largely promotional and the handful of references are weak and often quite old. An extreme example is the list of TV announcers which includes as a reference for one of the announcers an article from 2007. An 18 year old article that doesn't mention Menlo Oaks is neither reliable nor relevant to this team's 2025 season.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems like the consensus is that Division I football, basketball, volleyball (often) and hockey (sometimes) seasons generally have notability and therefore have their own article on wikipedia. Yes, Menlo is normally a Div II program, but they are competing in a combination conference agaisn't Div one teams who either already have a 2025 season article (i.e. BYU), or have had season articles in the past (USC, UCLA, Grand Canyon, etc.). Agree that some of the references aren't great, but those can be removed to bring the structure of the article in line with other college volleyball season articles. Epluribusunumyall (talk)
Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NSEASONS, there is no such presumed notability. Significant coverage must be shown to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Shehu Idris

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

Non-notable tech startup entrepreneur. Sources are all sponsored posts Ednabrenze (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Business, Technology, Africa, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not pass Wikipedia general Notability guidelines Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re not sponsored posts. They started covering the person’s company as he is making waves in the state. Theshehv (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: per nom, and also includes fake refs FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not fake refs, there was an error copying the link. Kindly check and update. Theshehv (talk) 18:10, 23 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. Merging this discussion into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagadai. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fukudai

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

Based on my understanding, "dai" is the Japanese equivalent of saying "uni", so these disambiguation pages are basically for "Fuku uni". Given the double step from shortening to "Fuku Uni" to the Japanese usage of "Fukudai", I do not think this is an appropriate disambiguation page for the English Wikipedia, but I'm happy to be corrected. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it follows the same format:

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Disambiguations, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the term is one which may be searched for, then the disambiguation page is a good one. Same rationale for Hirodai. Such pages conform to WP:DISAMBIG because "for [the] word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
The foreign language argument is a red herring. For example, we disambiguate Jiaoda and Beida as Jiaotong and Peking Universities. Slightly less straightfoward example is how we disambiguate Shida to various Chinese universities (and other topics). Oblivy (talk) 05:34, 23 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.

Human Rights Economy

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

This concept fails WP:GNG. Sources are none other than trivial mentions or routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An odd article on a neologism that does not appear to have secondary source coverage, thus failing WP:GNG. Meanwhile, the article fails WP:NOESSAY. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Rights Arts Movement

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

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

Delete: I've had this on my list to do a WP:BEFORE but haven't had time yet, but I trust the nominator has, and I agree with the assessment of the sources currently in the article. Only the Brooklyn Rail piece clears the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. The rest of the coverage consists of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or affiliated coverage. (See the talk page for my view on why the AustLit source is defective in this regard.) All told, I don't see an WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and New York. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 AFC Championship Game

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

I am also nominating the related page:

These articles fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as they are not the final game/series (e.g. a Super Bowl) and there is no extraordinary event or WP:LASTING impact (at the time of this nomination). The games are adequately covered at 2024–25_NFL_playoffs#AFC_Championship:_Buffalo_Bills_vs._Kansas_City_Chiefs and 2024–25_NFL_playoffs#NFC_Championship:_Washington_Commanders_vs._Philadelphia_Eagles.

Please note that I oppose a redirect from these titles, as the NFL typically refers to its playoff games using the season year and not the calendar year. The 2024 AFC and NFC Championship Game titles already redirect to the playoff article. The 2025 AFC and NFC Championship Game titles should eventually be created as redirects to the 2025-26 NFL playoffs article (but deleted for now). Frank Anchor 03:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are other ones out there??? there a 2020 and 2019 one I don't understand why mine is the only one getting deleted, also in those two other articles, in the see also section of the games both my articles are featured on there, so clearly a person wanted my article there... Tommy516 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, I created it so people can check it out before and after the games end, I am obviously going to update the scores after the games on Sunday so its fully up to date. Tommy516 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being accomplished at 2024–25_NFL_playoffs. Frank Anchor 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this discussion is limited to the two articles on the current season's conference championship games. Any user is welcome to start a separate AFD discussion on the other articles on conference championship games. However, pointing out the presence of other articles is not a valid argument for retaining (or deleting) an article. Each must stand on or fall on its own merit. Frank Anchor 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This makes 0 sense lol Tommy516 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the lists of deletion discussions: American football, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. Frank Anchor 04:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]
SUPPORT deleting these two articles and would suggest an AFD be opened for other Conference Championship Games that have their own article as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should have articles on all the AFC / NFC Championship games, since they are pretty important and do receive a good deal of coverage. I think it's a discussion worth having at least. BeanieFan11 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes I so would thank uuuu Tommy516 (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteering to create articles for all the missing Championship games? Here's the only ones that exist:
1970 AFC Championship Game
1975 AFC Championship Game
1995 AFC Championship Game
1998 NFC Championship Game
2014 NFC Championship Game
2018 NFC Championship Game
2019 NFC Championship Game
2020 NFC Championship Game

Assadzadeh (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment The article is in pretty rough shape right now, so that doesn't help. SPORTSEVENT necessitates that games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport and that news coverage should be extensive, specifically outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers. The fact that the NFL conference championships are primarily notable for the fact that they qualify the winners for the Super Bowl (mentioned in the first sentence of the AFC article and the second sentence of the NFC article) doesn't go very far in convincing me that said lasting impact or extensive news coverage exists or will exist after the season concludes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is odd to me that WP:NSPORTSEVENT specifically allows notability for bowl games. Is the 2024 New Orleans Bowl really more notable than the AFC Championship? That of course speaks to a larger problem with the cited criteria and not with this AFD. By the exact way NSPORTSEVENT is written, I lean delete. But it's just hard to stomach that with the existence of articles for every Bowl Game between two barely known college football teams. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the Bowl games are typically the final game of the season for the teams that played in them, but the Conference Championship games are just a precursor to the Super Bowl. Also, there are playoff articles for each NFL season (e.g. 2024–25 NFL playoffs) and it makes more sense to include the Conference Championship info in those articles. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plus i feel that these AFC and NFC Championship games need there own articles, there are 2 massive games and they could both very well make history, KC can make history, Buffalo can make history, Jayden Daniels and the Commaders could make history Tommy516 (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage is obviously out there and there will be even more coverage on it in a few days. This just kind of feels like some attempt to prove a point. KatoKungLee (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
exactly Tommy516 (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - There is no indication that these championship games are going to be any more notable than any of the others that we already don't have articles for. If the games become notable for something, by all means create these articles, but this is ridiculous. – Pee Jay 12:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic coverage of these important American sports events seems fine if editors are interested in writing and sourcing them. These are major events in the lives of the participants, to the fans and cities, and to the culture of the sport. If they exist and have no sourcing problems, they meet GNG as well as reader and researcher interest. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since it has already been created, it may be best to wait until the games are actually played this coming January 26. If there eventually is significant coverage, it could become a Wikipedia Featured Article like 1998 NFC Championship Game. Or a Wikipedia Good Article like 2014 NFC Championship Game or 2019 NFC Championship Game. What should not happen is the November 2020 version of the 2019 AFC Championship Game article that got Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AFC Championship Game started. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can withdraw the nomination on the procedural grounds to allow this scenario to play out, perhaps re-nominating sometime after the Super Bowl if there is no significant WP:SUSTAINED coverage specifically related to either conference championship game. With standing delete votes from @Assadzadeh: and @PeeJay:, I will not close the AFD at this time. If the articles are not deleted, they will need to be moved to 2024 AFC Championship Game and 2024 NFC Championship Game to match precedent from prior season articles and the names the NFL uses for these game (the league uses the season year, not the calendar year). Frank Anchor 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any closing admin should not interpret this procedural withdrawal request as a change in my opinion, I still support deletion. Frank Anchor 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taito SJ System

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

This arcade game system fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Games. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I agree that the subject does not appear to be notable, and suggest that the previous redirect [20] to Taito be reinstated, merging useful sourced content where possible. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Natalie McNally

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

Routine murder prosecution, fails WP:NCRIME. Badbluebus (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Events, and Ireland. Badbluebus (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page and the sourcing I could find makes no claim that this murder is anything other than routine as murders go. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic has received substantial coverage from independent sources. For instance The Guardian The Sun and multiple sources from the BBC 1 2 3 4 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable individual, being murdered by a streamer could be notable, but the article is basically one paragraph. I don't see how the crime rises to criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 23 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 speedy delete‎. per WP:CSD#G5 SmartSE (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gurteen

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable - created by apparent WP:COI editor (personal photos uploaded as own work) with promotional content. Does not appear to meet WP:NATHLETE and a WP:BEFORE search does not show anything to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and United Kingdom. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I was unable to find any sources online. Nada. Besides, the article should be eligible under G5 as User:Ambrose6.1 (the creator) sounds very similar to User:Ambrose2015, a CU confirmed sock of User:Oscar1994alex1999. Another confirmed sock of this last user is User:Oscar248, the creator of the first article and the person concerned by this article. I believe the name similarity is not a coincidence. Welcome to ~~AFD~~ SPI. win8x (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In short, this is block evasion, no one else has edited this article, G5. win8x (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and will action it as such. SmartSE (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 23 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.

HornBlasters

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable private company (if clever at marketing); fails WP:NCORP with insufficient WP:SIGCOV. We have a single example (in the Tampa Bay Times). The rest of the coverage is niche WP:TRADES magazines that don't contribute to notability ([21], [22], [23]) and a thinly disguised press release (original here). A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same, along with a bit of thin churnalism (example) about the company's viral marketing stunts that focuses more on the effects of the stunts than on the company itself. Given that this is the third deletion discussion for this page, if the outcome is "delete" I'd ask participants to consider supporting SALTing so future attempts go through AfC and don't waste the community's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gale, Indiana

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No information found, and the post office does not count toward notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Baker's Hoosier placenames book on page 141 says that this is a post office. It's there long enough to have made it into the 1895 Lippincott's, but it's not there amongst the Gales on page 1237, contraindicating any sort of settlement. This close to Indianapolis, the Bodenhamer and Barrows Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (IUP, 1994) seems worth a try, but that yields nothing.
However the Arcadia Publishing book on Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970) has Gale on page 114 and says that there was also a blacksmith, hardware store, and the original site (until 1961) of the Bartlett Chapel Church. So that's one source that's more than a post office directory entry. Another is the Hendricks County, Interim Report of 1989 by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which on page 36 describes Gale in the past tense as a "village" that had "a general store, blacksmith shop, and a Methodist church". So this is a documented, albeit barely, historical village, now extinct.
Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gikomba fire

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) as I cannot find sources for it that are not simply routine coverage contemporary to the fire. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are multiple sources for the event and others follow-up coverage, like BBC, DW, CNN, Kenya Star, The Nation, Nairobi News FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center Valley, Indiana

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

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

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

Bhadrotsav of Brahmo Samaj

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

Can't find any good sources, the article has potential close paraphrasing issues, and is very poorly written. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and India. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- It's been tagged with zero sources for two years. Plenty of time for an interested party to step-in. Indeed, even at creation 11 years ago, the article only had two non-reliable (and what appear to be primary) sources. I would recommend a merger with Brahmoism but that article doesn't even have a "holidays" section. (If you're interested, Brahmo looks ripe for deletion, as well. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep― Found this Telegraph article, which is significant, and a Google Books search shows more results here.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep few significant media source available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

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

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.

Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and Tunisia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. Not a valid deletion criterion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom; fails WP:GNG, in-passing mentions in the provided sources. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Passing through passive mentions is not want we want. No proper reference. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. It sounds like @Algerianeditor17 is claiming that non-English sources are available that pass WP:GNG, so perhaps they can work on it in draftspace and have it reviewed in WP:AFC? --Richard Yin (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this !vote as a compromise no one else seems to be interested in. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.

For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."

As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Three of the sources provided clearly describe the battle. Two don’t that I can see and an Arabic search didn’t throw up anything else. Possibly redirect to Almohad Caliphate#Caliphate and expansion as ATD if there’s no consensus to keep. Mccapra (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have arguments to Delete, Keep, Draftify and even Redirect. If we can't come to a consensus here, this discussion is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The reasons brought forward for deletion are insufficient, especially the lack of English-language sources, which is never a requirement for anything. Cortador (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have analysed the chronology and coverage of the Almohad campaigns in English and other-language sources. This article is a heavy corruption of the events detailed in Battle of Sétif, a battle which occurred in 1153. If you compare the two articles, you will see that the events are largely identical, with slightly altered names (Djebbâra ben Kâmil vs Gabbara ibn Kamil, Mas’oûd ben Zemmâm el-Ballât’ vs Ma'sud ibn Zaamam, etc.) I kindly ask Cortador, Mccapra, and RebeccaGreen to review the above argument and their !votes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

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

Soybean46 (talk · contribs) tagged this article for deletion and added the nomination subpage to the daily list, but did not actually create the subpage. Nonetheless, a rationale was given in an edit summary: Nominated article for deletion, doesnt meet SIGCOV. I note that there are other tags since October 2015 that also indicate COI and OR issues, but my involvement here is entirely procedural and I offer no actual opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current sourcing in the article is terrible. Having said that, there is no option to delete here; per WP:BANDMEMBER we need to either redirect to Above & Beyond (band), or keep as a seperate article. To keep as a seperate article then evidence is needed to show McGuiness is notable independently of the bands he plays in. On a quick search the following are evidence supporting independent notability: DJ Mag Germany, DJ Mag Latin America, EDM.com. I will look for further sources when I have time. ResonantDis_tortion 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that an Instagram and Companies House sources tick the boxes of SIGCOV. Perhaps the one additional source you have added 'ticks the box', but the article still needs cleaning up. Soybean46 (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or redirecting. Soybean46 (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, wondering if User:ResonantDistortion has come to a position on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have identified a couple more sources, including covering his career in marketing - including Music Week award, and of his solo career. Article has been updated. Should be enough to show independent notability. ResonantDis_tortion 20:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miran Rada

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. His google scholar page shows a very low h-index and the number of citations of his publications are not impressive. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Science, Biology, Medicine, Iraq, Canada, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof for low citations in a very high-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Early-career academic, just started a faculty position [24] (not reflected in our article) after a postdoc (the Canadian position from which the only source in the article comes). People at this level of an academic career are unlikely to be notable yet and we have no evidence of him being an exception. The one source is not independent (published by McGill, the location of his postdoc) and has no depth of coverage of him so we also do not have WP:GNG notability. WP:TOOSOON. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini Film Festival

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources I find are mentions, unreliable, or advertorials. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Greece. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:42, 16 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!} 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

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

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated some news sources, feel free to check it out. HKFighter (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources all look to be from the club's own website? Ergo, not SIGCOV. Giant Snowman 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's been some secondary coverage added, looks like player signings and an interview (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have added somemore secondary sources to the article, as the season progress there should be more coverage available. HKFighter (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KeepEven this early into 2025, the season in question, the team has picked up coverage in NHK (the Japanese equivalent of the BBC), TBS (another major national news organisation), and the Yamaguchi Shinbun (the major newspaper for the region where the team is from). The coverage so far has been about their signing of two professional players, rather than games played, but that is because the season itself has not yet kicked off. One assumes there will be more coverage coming as the season progresses. It seems much too soon in the piece to AfD an article which is still clearly under construction, but which ALREADY has enough coverage in major independent news sources around the new signings to have achieved notability. If anyone is wondering / wants to check that coverage out in Japanese themselves, they are citations 2,7,8 and 11 on the article as currently written. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also found more coverage both in various written articles, and also a TV broadcast. Here, here (with mirror version here since the original has paywalls) here, and here. It’s still mostly about the signings, but also about plans for the team to move out of the regional competitions, and into the professional leagues, and how signing professional players works as part of this plan. Still, that’s 7 different independent media sources, all with their own slant on the basic information and what it means. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recently located sources (in the article and discussion) can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 New Zealand heat wave

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

Fails WP:NEVENT ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NEVENT. Not one source exists that comes even closure to claiming a heat wave. Ajf773 (talk) 02:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing anything that describes a heat wave, much less a notable heat wave. This article, for instance, says that December 2024 was the fourth-hottest on record and that temperatures are expected to be "above average" in the early months of 2025, but doesn't describe anything unusual or notable. Yes, this summer was relatively hot (because climate change means that every summer is "one of the hottest on record"), but that doesn't mean it deserves an article. MCE89 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a non-WP:EVENT. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Kotnala

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

Highly promo page for an academic full of issues. While he might pass notability WP:NPROF#C1, even after some cleaning of unverified statements the page contains far too much unsourced material. As general quality control I am recommending draftifying; somehow it has escaped the standard 3 month window for this. We need to ensure that articles in main space are not just notable, they are encyclopedic.

Issues:

No sources for #Early life and education
No sources for #Career as a scientist
Highly promo tone about the so-called hydroelectric cell which "generates green electricity by splitting water", for which the only sources quoted are news articles.
Claim of establishment of advanced measurement techniques for magnetic materials quotes a paper on biological extraction of metals
From what I can see no secondary sources, only a couple of his papers and news articles in the cleaned up sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Health and fitness, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 16 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!} 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Marquit

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual does not seem notable, I couldn't find enough sources with this person's name. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jade (sea lion)

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

The sources are just routine coverage of an animal being shot and killed. The media has not covered the story since then. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and New Zealand. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage happened over an extended period of time, and does not fit the description of a routine news event. Cortador (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be sourcing happening throughout the year as the case developed, but the article presents it in a confusing way. It's unclear whether the sea lion was actually shot or killed another way. Might be worthwhile to change this page to be about the incident rather than the animal itself? RakdosWitch (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

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

I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Heart ^(talk) 18:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it now includes its Memorial Art Gallery page as a reference. Artworks usually are verified as notable if they include their sourced holding museum reference, so please check for these if you make further artwork AfDs (thanks). Additionally, the museum website page includes its own list of references. The museum page and its references, along with many of the other cites such as newspapers and The Brooklyn Rail reference included in the nomination, meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's simply untrue that a holding museum page for an article typically establishes notability, as many museums have brief data pages for most all their artwork and even this one lacks significant coverage needed to pass GNG. But the linked [25] in addition to the Brooklyn Rail is certainly enough for notability of the sculpture series. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, museums have pages for their artworks. Please look at the museum link again, it contains further references towards the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's how I found the link I mentioned. But having a museum page doesn't mean a page is presumed to be notable, many don't have a bibliography or substantial analysis. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for weak coverage. My opinion is that Brooklyn Rail is mostly reliable for its arts coverage and its articles with bylines. The author in this piece wrote two articles for the Rail 10 years ago, and then disappeared. Museum websites are also available for use on Wikipedia. The problem for me is that the artwork isn't automatically notable because of the artist. Please feel free to try to convince me this is notable on its own. I'm not strong for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing so it’s not just from one person.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist's article. The fact that the only "analysis" source is the one Brooklyn Rail article is not enough to justify a standalone article. It becomes a WP:COATRACK for primary source expansion when dedicated articles should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. In this case, they do not appear to exist. The Marlborough Gallery exhibition essay is not independent of the subject. The other sources in the Magart catalog listing might be relevant to a Centennial Sculpture Park article but even then are more likely to fill out a section on that topic within the museum's article than to substantiate an article about an individual sculpture discussed in passing. Expand in summary style within the parent artist article. Also note that this article should be retitled by the artwork titles guideline and that the multiple images uploaded to Commons need to be deleted, lacking a free license to display the copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama. czar 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Art isn't really my area, but I did find some additional sources that I thought might be useful. These three articles (one admittedly in a college paper) talk about plans for the sculpture and about the controversy surrounding it in a fair bit of detail: [26] [27] [28] (edit: apologies, missed that one of these was already in the article). These two articles from 2018 are about ongoing maintenance of the sculpture, suggesting that it continues to attract at least some level of attention: [29] [30]. And I'm not sure whether this can be considered towards notability, but it's discussed at some length in this PhD dissertation (suggesting at least a minor level of academic interest in the sculpture?). It's definitely not the world's most prominent artwork, but a few pieces of artistic analysis plus some local news coverage as a landmark is enough to make me think it's marginally notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dissertations and student papers are unreliable and not considered notable coverage for notability discussions. The Rochester City Magazine articles make the case for an article about the sculpture park, which can contain discussion of the sculpture, but where's the significant coverage to write about the sculpture itself without delving into primary sources like the article has? The other local news coverage is brief and doesn't contribute to this either. czar 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The museum source is not a primary source. And no, this is not bludgeoning, just a clarification about museum pages reporting about their holdings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to re-read that essay on bludgeoning. I don't often cite essays at people, as it's rude and counterproductive, but you should really just stop responding to this AfD. You've responded 6 times, and people know your opinion, and we know you are going to disagree with those arguing delete. You really can just drop the stick. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with the following significant coverage in reliable sources.

"TOM OTTERNESS Creation Myth". The Brooklyn Rail. 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2025-01-23.. Critical review and analysis in The Brooklyn Rail, a reliable source for art criticism.
"Gallery's sculpture garden not without controversy". The Buffalo News. 2013-08-04. p. 65. Retrieved 2025-01-23. The most interesting work at the new sculpture garden at Rochester's Memorial Art Gallery, the one that attracts the most attention, that takes up the most space, that visitors are most likely to spend the most time with, that is, in so many ways, delightful, is also the most controversial, the one with the darkest past. It's called Creation Myth and is the work of Tom Otterness, one of the country's best-known sculptors...
Jacobson, Sebby Wilson. "Inside Out: Memorial Art Gallery celebrates 100 years with a new sculpture park". American Craft. 73 (4): 90–93. Given a prime site at the park's busy corner, Otterness designed Creation Myth to link the gallery with its neighboring museums and artists' studios -and to reflect the region's history as the cradle of the U.S. women's rights movement. Reversing the roles of the traditional Pygmalion tale, the Brooklyn artist depicts female sculptors carving male sculptures amid a quarry-like setting that doubles as an amphitheater. Several massive, cartoonlike figures, composed of simple sphere, cube, cone, and cylinder forms, are rendered in Indiana limestone taken from the same quarry that supplied materials for the gallery's original building. Scattered throughout the site are about a dozen small bronze figures that depict the creative process, as well as same-sex couples kissing.
Steiner, Wendy (2015-08-01). "Moved by Metal On Beauty as Interaction". Metalsmith. 33 (4). Tom Otterness builds whole playgrounds out of the debris of the old Palace of Art, humanizing the cold geometric forms of modernism into lovable cones, cubes, and spheres. In the "Creation Myth" series, he deploys these figures to overturn the misogyny of the Pygmalion myth. In this archetypal account of male creativity, the sculptor Pygmalion refuses to use any model for his image of beauty, because he believes that all women are prostitutes. He fabricates an ideal female figure out of his own imagination, and predictably, falls in love with his self-projection. With the help of the gods, he kisses the statue to life and then marries her. This is Interactive Beauty with a vengeance, I suppose, except that the women in the story have no agency. Pygmalion is not only the artist, but the model for his artwork, its viewer, and its owner. Otterness amends this closed circuit with a female artist who sculpts a male statue, and when the two kiss, they kiss as equals.

Jfire (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Changing to keep from nom, I am convinced by the previous comment. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Collins

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRENDnet

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

Nominating for deletion for failing to meet WP:NCORP; and passing mentions media coverage Villkomoses (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of tech reviews to be found about their products in RS. The one source in the article about the FTC enforcement helps, as does this one [31]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
reviews are about the products, not the company I guess 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the one source you provided is not a reliable one 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Verge (cite) and CNET (cite) provide significant coverage. I suspect that a proper WP: BEFORE was not conducted before this nomination was made. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

no significant coverage found, explained below in my delete vote 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: [32], [33], [34] These mentioned above sources are not reliable as they do not provide in-depth coverage of the company or address the topic with the necessary depth. All the sources are event-based and focus on a one single event about some claims settlement. I also cannot not find any additional reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the company. --2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this, as current sources is more about the event of the "security leak" that the company faced and just brief mentions about the company itself. the article is supposed to highlight the company and not about what the issues they have faced see In re TRENDnet, Inc. which is more focused appropriately on what the citations here are pertaining to. If more RS can be found where it is more about the company being discussed. (e.g. History, achievements, contributions..) then this maybe considered keeps otherwise delete or return to drafts? Villkomoses (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear WP:NCORP pass.

Wyatt, Edward (2013-09-05). "F.T.C. Says Webcam's Flaw Put Users' Lives on Display". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-23.

This is precisely one of the examples from WP:SUBSTANTIAL: A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product. There's also a lot of product coverage in ProQuest and Google Books. Jfire (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wiig

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

as an actor, fails WP:ENT, having only one notable named role in Milk (2008 American film). all his remaining credits are unnamed, often uncredited roles, with even his most notable appearance in Into the Wild (film) being an unnamed ferry ranger. only one local source is used as evidence for this "notability", alongside IMDb which is not reliable per WP:IMDBREF. as a musician, he fails WP:NMUSIC; his most notable accomplishment is playing in a band that Metallica's bass player also played in. once again, the "notability" for his music career is established with only one source. jeschaton (immanentize) 20:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Heart ^(talk) 20:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other named roles include Into The Wild (as Lee's Ferry Ranger), Milk (as McConnelly), Yosemite (as Michael), Sacred Blood (as Buck), Waiting For Wiig (as Wiig), All The Others Were Practice (as Amir) and I'm Charlie Walker (2022) as Dan Wallace.

Recorded two albums with Jason Newsted's (Metallica) on Chophouse Records: Unipsycho (2002) and Live Lycanthropy (2003)

https://www.discogs.com/artist/2154086-Papa-Wheelie

Also released several albums with Shrakys, The Martichora and soon Radio Incognito Nagalist (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Member of the Screen Actors Guild since 2011. SMCLL (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Article updates Nagalist (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: "Lee's Ferry Ranger" is a job description, not a name. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lee's Ferry Ranger" is the name of the character. Nagalist (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable appearances updated SMCLL (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the comment above because SMCLL had already entered their view below (duplicate !vote). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, or WP:GNG. I found one independent source not already used in the article[35] but like the others, it's merely local coverage, and even it says "Wiig's path to what you might call U.P. superstardom -- he's still relatively unknown in lower Michigan, but is becoming a household name in the U.P.", indicating a lack of notability outside of the area where he grew up. That was in 2014, but I cannot find any significant coverage since then either. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the additional sources that Nagalist just added to the article, most are trivial mentions, a piece in a school paper, plus a few blogs and imdb. There is the cineSOURCE article, however cineSOURCE is a niche online site for the Marin area (where Wiig lived at the time), so it still seems like local coverage only. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Blabbermouth, Loudwire, Guitar World & Inside Pulse are NOT local niche resources SMCLL (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and above comment. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References updated Nagalist (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per updates SMCLL (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) — SMCLL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sources updated SMCLL (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that editors can review sources added recently to the article. I'm not optimistic though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De De Pyaar De 2

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not scheduled for release until November and nothing notable about the production. References are announcements or other churnalism. Attempted redirect but that was disputed. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the PROD initiating editor to redirect instead of deleting. But since that was disputed, I don't think it should be deleted. It's a continuing sequel of an already existing article on wikipedia. The page should be redirected until release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the original intention but now here we are unfortunately. I still think a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD but would need to protect the title so we don't wind up here yet again. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is vote by me. this film was supposed to release in May 2025, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, the release has been deferred to November 2025. Now the editor who has nominated the film wiki page for deletion says the film is too early and nothing substantial, and I also get to see a comment that says redirected. For both my request is please look into the below wiki links of Hollywood films set to release in 2025 & 2026, as well as Bollywood films set to release in 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_films_of_2025

As you can see Hollywood films like Avatar: Fire and Ash OR Avatar 3 is releasing in Dec 2025, Now You See Me 3 is releasing in Nov 2025, Mortal Kombat 5 is releasing in Oct 2025, Even untitled films have well-established wiki pages even a Shrek 5 releasing late 2026 has a well established wiki page. As for Bollywood films is Jolly LLB 3 set to release in July 2025, Baaghi 4 releasing late 2025 has a well established wiki page. All these films have well established wiki pages, now if delay in release is the reason for deleting this wiki page, what is the 'guarantee' the above films will be released on said dates. Or if 'too early' is reason to delete this wiki page, same logic needs to apply to wiki pages of above movies mentioned. As for 'redirect', I find no reason for it as the film was delayed due to reasons beyond the makers control, so this film was delayed, otherwise the fim would have released on earlier mentioned dates. Will those voting to redirect or delete apply the same logic to above films. think about it. As for material as b when it comes that can be added. I hereby rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be based on WP:OSE. Can you show how this meets notability under WP:NFILM?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this film is a direct sequal to a superhit movie with almost the entire crew taking part once again, is that reason not enough for notability. you call it argument unfortunately today people when have no answer to reason they call it argument, sigh. Bonadart (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term argument in that context does not mean anything negative. It means your "contention," "point," or "reasoning." Please don't go down that road. Now, as far as notability, I am unaware of anything in WP:NFILM that says direct sequals of a superhit movie are inherently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Too early to pass WP:NFILM that has not even reached post production. Better to keep it in draft or recreate the article once significant coverage is available after post production or close to release date. RangersRus (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know? can you show anything that says so. makers have not specified any reason for delay as for shooting afaik mumbai, punjab and london schedules are already done, so invariably the film is in post production, must be there are some delays here. how i know!! well remember 'singham again' where ranveer singh made the famous dialogue 'parivar bhi badne wala hai' and deepika delivered her baby before filmn released. 😀😀 this clearly meams shooting was clearly over when she took maternity leave. normally bollywood films complete shooting within 6-8 month. so filmn is obviously in post production. so draft or delete dont stand. if you insist check Baaghi 4 Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5, and do share opinion on them. ciao Bonadart (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Production is the stage after production when the filming is wrapped and the editing of the visual and audio materials begins. Please do not bring other pages for discussion in this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you still havent answered my questions

1.'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know?

2. check Baaghi 4, Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5 based your assertion about this film, shouldnt these pages be removed as well

😀 i get it you got no andswer, period!!😀, or is it that if you try to delete these pages bigger players may come after you.

i say again, just bcoz this film has been delayed doesnt call for deletion or draft or redirect, you cant raise notability flag everytime without reason.

06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Bonadart (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting WP:BLUDGEONING and crossing WP:UNCIVIL behavior. You are also attempting WP:CANVASSING by asking other editor to vote in your favor. I answered your question already but you do not understand and gave you a definition of what Post production is. Source on the page shows the film is in the making and no other sufficient coverage to show otherwise and if you have concerns about any other pages on the films, you can file an AFD for them. RangersRus (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. Bonadart attempted WP:CANVASSING requesting other editor to vote in his favor and bringing more votes to do so. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
chill i didnt know requesting for help is considered canvassing here, as soon as i was made aware of such i removed the help request, btw i have no interest in requesting for other page deletion/afd. i have problem with the way the editor CNMall41 behaved, the editor simply removed the entire page saying 'too soon' in edit note, when the makers changed the release date without giving any reason from 1/5/25 to 14/11/25. when i reinstated it the editor becoming aware of it, immmidiately went for deletion request saying notability issue. how come too soon becomes notability in a jiffy? it is for this reason i thought seeking help from anyone will help stop such disruptive editing n nomination. btw i am involved in film industry so i know a bollywood film takes 6-8 month to finish shooting and around same time to post production. as such in all sense n purpose this film is in post production even if details arent there. i hope i make myself clear. ciao Bonadart (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, how were you made aware of WP:CANVASSING? Off-wiki communication? RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually notified them with a warning for such on their talk page but they removed it. It's heading towards ANI unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or redirect to De De Pyaar De. Given the low quality of most of the sources, this article may well be premature, but given that it will certainly be notable upon release and that there is some coverage of the ongoing production I can't in good faith say delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
hi thanks for the 'keep' vote but i have point, you talk of low quality on this wiki page but the same type of sources have been used to create pages for Jolly LLB 3 and Baaghi 4, btw the way n when was made the page isnt premature, it was inline with release set for may 2025, if film were to release on date as mentioned earlier then it wont have been dubbed premature, as for delay till nov 2025 makers havent specified reasons so cant be called premature since shooting afaik is done & is now in all purpose in post production though no details available. btw as more info is published the page will grow as such redirect too isn't right. Bonadart (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told numerous times to stop bringing up WP:OSE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArcGIS Urban

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:COMPANY, none such provided in the article and my googling does not turn up any seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Products, and Software. seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ArcGIS since Urban is a product within Esri's ArcGIS line. Not sure if WP:COMPANY applies here since it's a product and not a company, but agree that this should be deleted due to poor sourcing. Artwhitemaster (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found a decent scholarly source here [36], still looking for other sources before I cast a !vote. Toadspike [Talk] 10:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also found [37], which has a brief description of ArcGIS Urban. All other hits on Google Scholar appear to be false positives. Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[38] has some coverage but might be based entirely on press releases, I'm not sure. [39] might be better. There are some passing mentions elsewhere, which I won't bother to list.

I support a merge to ArcGIS – a case could be made for notability, but the article doesn't have much detail anyways, so a standalone page doesn't make sense to me. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! I'm the user who created the page, and I'm still relatively new at making pages (mostly did small edits until now). Full disclosure: I work as a software engineer on this product (ArcGIS Urban), and I wasn't exactly familiar with the Wikipedia notability test - a learning experience for me! Since I saw the "nominated this article for deletion" banner, I haven't made more edits, but maybe it would help if I added more references and expanded the article? In the end I will defer to the experts on whether the page needs to be kept/merged/etc. CJJ2501 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply! Please also keep in mind WP:COI; on Wikipedia working on topics you have a paid relationship to comes with significant caveats.

Regardless of COI, you could try to identify more reliable sources (namely third party mainstream news coverage) but I've done some looking and am a bit skeptical it would pass notability. seefooddiet (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to me that this is somewhat similar to the AfD we had a while back on WG Grace, see WP:Articles for deletion/W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870). The difference here appears to be substantive in that we are talking about a sporting achievement rather than trying to write a full autobiography. I've not yet come to a conclusion where I fall on this one but thought other contributors might appreciate seeing the other discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like a proposal to delete a Featured List needs a stronger argument than this. In any case, it meets the long-agreed upon threshold of 15 fifers. St Anselm (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A stronger argument than it not meeting our most basic PAGs? FOARP (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of references to the article, establishing the significance of his fifers as captain. St Anselm (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you added here. It’s a passing mention in an article about Joe Root/Pat Cummins. Not significant coverage of Bob Willis. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge necessary content to the main article. Lorstaking (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject meets NLIST requirements for IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Chalava

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

Non notable rabbi. From my searches only one source (an obscure one) accounts for his existence. On google, searching him up only nets 25 results, with the majority of them copying the en-wp article. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created in 2011 with no inline sourcing. The "References" section is actually a template of other Wikipedia Rabbi articles. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoBolt

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding reports (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework. On a pure WP:GNG basis there seems to be enough reliable sourcing here to meet notability. Certainly the sourcing is pretty bad and the author may need to be trouted and/or reminded of WP:SELFPUB, but other than that it's fine as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 9 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!} 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one keep comment seems mildly contradictory with itself. As of now there clearly is not a consensus for any specific course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. When you weed out the bad sourcing and announcements, there are still at least two good ones, Collier's (Canada) and The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References 17 and 18 seem to be reliable, independent, and non-churnalism. All the promotional and non-independent sources need to go, however; far too many laundered press releases and routine announcements. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Haag, Matthew; Salam, Maya (20 April 2018). "On Southwest 1380, Confusion and Distraction as Oxygen Masks Dropped". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[2] Zhang, Benjamin (20 April 2018). "Here's what happened on the fatal Southwest Airlines flight". Business Insider. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[3] Healy, Jack; Hauser, Christine (18 April 2018). "Inside Southwest Flight 1380, 20 Minutes of Chaos and Terror". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[4] Negroni, Christine (19 April 2018). "Engine on Southwest Jet Not the Only One to Develop Cracks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[5] Levin, Alan (19 April 2018). "Metal Weakness in Southwest Jet Tests Limits of Safety Inspections". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[6] "Southwest Flight 1380: What Happened Onboard". The Wall Street Journal. 26 April 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[7] Koenig, David; Lauer, Claudia (14 November 2018). "Hearing reveals chilling details of fatal Southwest flight". The Associated Press. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[8] Goyer, Isabel (13 December 2019). "Engine Explosion Cause Found: NTSB Final Report On Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". Plane & Pilot Magazine. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[9] C. Kemp, Alexandra; Dalal, Jahnavi; Tassawar, Usama; Lu, Chien-Tsung (1 January 2021). "Safety Analysis of Uncontained Engine Failure-Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". International Journal of Crisis Management. 11 (1). doi:10.6929/IJCM.202101_11(1).0002. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[10] Auxier, Eric (24 April 2021). "Southwest Flight 1380: Anatomy of an Inflight Emergency". Airways News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[11] "Southwest 1380 Archives". Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[12] Josephs, Leslie (19 November 2019). "Boeing commits to NTSB safety fixes on thousands of 737 NG jets after deadly Southwest engine blast". CNBC. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[13] Pimentel, Dan (22 November 2019). "NTSB Issues Seven Recommendations After SWA 1380 Accident". Flying. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[14] Broderick, Sean (20 July 2023). "Boeing Completes 737NG Nacelle Redesign Work | Aviation Week Network". Aviation Week. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[15] Velani, Bhavya (22 July 2023). "Boeing Finishes Redesign of 737NG Nacelles After Southwest Engine Blowouts". Aviation A2Z. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]