Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 20	December 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Graeme Geddes

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

Can find a grand total of 1 article on this guy, and while it covers him in depth, it isn't really enough to qualify him as notable. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Australia. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteASAP. ZERO sources. Does not meet WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim migrations to Ottoman Palestine

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

Article started by Icewhiz sock. Article is taken straight from Zionist propaganda: Palestinians are "recent" immigrants to Israel/Palestine, when Jewish immigration was far larger Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Israel and Palestine. Huldra (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there is a POV bias in this page, that should be resolved by editing. If the topic is notable, which it appears to be, that wouldn't be a valid deletion rationale. Has sources, and ineligible for G5 since other contributions were made after the sock. Andre🚐 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Arab migrations to the Levant page and this page are pretty long, so I'm not sure if a merge is the best route. I could see there being a page about each of the major periods of migration. It doesn't seem like this topic is currently covered in the former page though. I'm going to remain at Keep for now and not Merge even though I can understand the argument to Merge. Andre🚐 23:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Article is Zionist propaganda" is not a valid deletion argument. Specifically, according to WP:SKCRIT, this is a nomination that is clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree their wording is unnecessarily combative, WP:G5 is still a valid reason to bring this here & I'm unsure how it could be considered an "attempt to end an editing dispute." Who is the editing dispute between? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butterscotch Beluga: As Andre said, the page has substantial edits from one other person and doesn't qualify for G5. The editing dispute is that Huldra is unhappy with the article's content. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Demographic history of Palestine (region). I don't think the wording of this proposal was necessary, but regardless, outside of being mostly written by a blocked sock, this article feels like undetailed retreading of already existing articles. It relies too much on the writings of 1 author, David Grossman, with 5/16 sources written by him + as far as I can tell online, he also had a hand in Zvi Ilan's 'Turkmens, Circassians, and Bosnians in Northern Sharon", though I could be misreading that. It also contains content unrelated to the topic such as Druze communities & settlement to areas that weren't a part of Ottoman Palestine like Damascus, Ajloun, and the Hauran. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Butterscotch Beluga: What about merging with Arab migrations to the Levant? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That'd actually be better. I had originally proposed Demographic history of Palestine (region) because I thought it was also being merged with Arab migrations to the Levant, but I now see that proposal isn't gaining traction. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arab migrations to the Levant. There was nothing special about Palestine in the Ottoman period as far as Muslim population movements were concerned. The I-P conflict is the only reason for the focus on Palestine, and that focus creates the misleading impression that Palestine was special when it wasn't. This article also fails to give a balanced account as there is no attempt to place migrations in context or weigh their significance relative to the existing population. Zero^talk 08:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my mind after checking DaWalda's source investigation. The mention of Volney was only correct because I had fixed it recently, but DaWalda is right that the next page is also crucial. Unfortunately, nothing that Icewhiz ever wrote can be trusted. As far as merging is concerned, the main claims are already in Demographic history of Palestine (region) where they also need to be carefully assessed against the sources. Zero^talk 02:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The content could be suitably added to Arab migrations to the Levant or Demographic history of Palestine (region). Richard Nevell (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have thoroughly reviewed only the sections on the 16th century, the 17th–18th centuries, and the 1830s because these are the periods I am most familiar with. However, they are so flawed that even a merge would not be worthwhile:
16th century: This section does not address immigration at all.
17th-18th century:
The first paragraph cites Krämer. The referenced pages 134f. only state: The total number of nomads [in Palestine] appears to have been small, at least until the immigration of Bedouin clans from the Hijaz, Syria, and Transjordan in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The cities, too, were surprisingly small. Pp. 50f. do not specifically concern Palestine and more likely focus on East Jordanian areas. The passage begins: ... Bedouins could also become partners with the Ottoman government and its local representatives, acting among other things as guardians and protectors of individual stretches of road, especially along the pilgrimage route from Damascus to Mecca. Up into the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman authorities pursued a policy favorable to the Bedouins [..., followed by a description of this policy].
The same Krämer references are repeated four times in the 1830s section, and in none of these cases do they support the claims made in the Wikipedia text.
The second paragraph is sourced to Ehrlich 2022, p. 82, but this discusses only the Golan, the former Decapolis region, Banias, and Jabal al-Druze—all locations in Syria or Jordan, albeit near the border. Again, nothing about immigration to Palestine.
The third paragraph is acceptable, but if Volney is cited, the subsequent page must also be included, where it states that most of these mentioned Egyptian migrants eventually perished.
1830s:
In the first paragraph, sentences 1 and 2 are accurate. Sentence 3, as mentioned, is a misquotation. Sentence 4 is misleading; Sabri does not discuss the deserters mentioned by Grossman in sentence 2 but rather a different migration movement of 6,000 peasants (cf. Aharoni/Kressel 2018, p. 9; Grossman, p. 47 [English ed.]).
In the second paragraph, Jaffa is correct (Grossman estimates 2,000 Egyptians there: p. 52). However, regarding the Gaza area, Grossman explicitly states: In most cases the Egyptian army dropouts and the other Egyptian settlers preferred to settle in existing localities, rather than to establish new villages. ... The southern coastal plain (Philistia) ... [h]owever, ... was densely settled and, therefore, its land reserves were low. Accordingly, all locations with Egyptian populations shown on the map on p. 53 are north of Gaza.
The next sentence is again misquoted but could instead be supported with Grossman, pp. 55–57.
Regarding the final sentence about residents of the southern coastal plain moving to Wadi Ara, Icewhiz appears to have generalized the story of one Egyptian immigrant interviewed by Grossman (p. 55) to all Egyptians who migrated to the southern coastal plain/Wadi Ara. The only verifiable claim here is that some Egyptian immigrants also settled in Wadi Ara.
=> In summary, these three chapters provide roughly four usable sentences for a merge. However, identifying which sentences are salvageable would require access to and command of the original sources. Given both, one could better supplement the Demographic history of Palestine (region) article directly with these sources, without relying on this flawed article. DaWalda (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaWalda, who did the work and has uncovered troubling misrepresentation of source material.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta ask. Does anyone think this misleading article on a non-topic written by a liar should persist? There are almost no contributions to it except from the liar and people trying to clean up the liar's mess. What are we even doing here?Dan Murphy (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why is this even a discussion? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt instrument

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

Fails WP:DICDEF, being mostly a definition of what a "blunt instrument" is and some examples. Wikipedia is not a phrasebook and therefore unless something can be found to demonstrate its standalone notability, it probably shouldn't remain as an article. While I have a feeling blunt weapon may be notable, nothing in particular from this article is salvageable so it would have to be created from scratch anyway. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, History, Military, and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the term "blunt instrument" can have multiple uses (in espionage, for example), this article makes little sense. Leaning toward Delete at this time. Intothat darkness 16:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t think this is a DICDEF fail - it’s not about the phrase blunt instrument, it’s just about the weapon in the context of criminology. It’s just a stub. And if the title is the issue that can be changed, so I don’t think the reasons above are good for deletion (though I think blunt instrument is actually the better title). This is not at all a TNT case. Will look for sources later - I would guess there is enough in criminology sources to pass GNG and I don’t know where else we’d cover this so it’s not a NOPAGE situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so... that just makes it a criminology term. Same difference. Wikipedia is also not a legal handbook either, so WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There has to be multiple RS discussing blunt instruments as they relate to law, and right now the only source is not about blunt instruments, but blunt force trauma, which can be caused by things other than blunt instruments such as transportation fatalities. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic everything is a DICDEF violation. Yes, which is why I said I would look for sources later, and why I did not vote yet. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply: this is not data, a plot summary, lyrics, or lists of software updates (the examples it gives!), or anything analogous to that. Stubs are not a violation of INDISCRIMINATE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is not a definition, and you would not find anything similar in scope to this article in a dictionary, phrasebook or legal handbook. The literal (rather than figurative) definition at Wiktionary is a single sentence long, for example. A dictionary would not place the term in wider context, contrasting other categories of weapon in the same classification framework, or contrasting the perspectives of different disciplines such as criminology or medicine. The list of commonly improvised blunt instrument weapons is also highly undictionary-like. WP:DICDEF doesnt work, Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't work either because information in context is not indiscriminate. Also not data as User:PARAKANYAA mentions, but thats two ways that Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE isn't applicable. 似た牌愛魔 (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least not delete. This information should exist somewhere onwiki, though I'm not sure that it is best served as its own page. A merge would be better, but I can't think of a target.

Some sources I found quickly, I can look for more if you want:

Information on the considerations of attacks resulting from this kind of weapon is encyclopedic. No opposition to a merge or appropriate redirect later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to indicate to me a merge to blunt trauma would be best, maybe creating an "in crime" or "inflicted by weapons" section because it extends to other accidents besides criminal acts. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine by me, though it may fit awkwardly there, unsure. I just feel strongly that information about this concept should go... somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to blunt trauma, because virtually anything hard, from baseball ball to candlestick to 4x4 to riffle butt may serve as a "blunt instrument" of an assault and the term is used almost exclusively as a catch-it-all term in context of traumas when the actual object is not identified. --Altenmann >talk 18:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. The article is more or less about everyday objects that can be used to bash someone. Article has existed for 18 years and notability has yet to be shown. Could redirect to Weapon, as the 2nd paragraph there says "ordinary objects such as sticks, rocks, bottles, chairs, and vehicles can be used as weapons", and blunt instruments are mentioned in the Weapon#Types section. Nurg (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've bulk-added a handful of academic sources, of various degrees of SIGCOV. May need more careful pruning. Not to WP:WHATABOUT this, but we have an article for each of the other 18 weapon types listed in Weapon#By_function. I have no doubt there are sources beyond the ones I've just added. This needs work, not BLAR. Owen× ☎ 17:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just noticed most of the sources I added were already found by PARAKANYAA... Owen× ☎ 17:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavishya Malika Puran

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

I propose taking action on the article "Bhavishya Malika Puran" as it solely presents propaganda spread by news channels for financial gain. Context: The article is highly disputed, and its accuracy as a translation of the original Bhavishya Malika remains unverified. News channels have extensively covered this topic, primarily repeating the claims made by the Pandit. Unfortunately, the errors in this translated book, which appears to be motivated by financial interests, have gone unchallenged. Having carefully examined the book and its issues, I recommend one of the following actions: 1. Archive the article until credible evidence supporting its claims is provided. Or 2. Add a disclaimer to the article stating that it is a controversial issue and establish a Reception section to present a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharavela Deva (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 December 2024 (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/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for article deletion. However, the subject passes WP:NBOOK. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 5 criteria did it pass for English Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? Would Hindi Wikipedia be more appropriate?Some of the sources appear to be solely in Hindi and/or are interviews, quotes, promotional, or blatanly state that the publisher takes no responsibility: "The above information is based on various sources. Webdunia does not officially confirm it." Alegh (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book is self published through Notion Press publisher. Book fails WP:NBOOK. Page does not have multiple reviews from reliable sources. I can not find if book has won a major literary award and if the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution in any area. Sources on the page are simply poor. RangersRus (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics

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

This isn't an official list kept by Oceania Athletics Association and appears to be full of original research. Plus, the tables are incomplete. Besides the senior ranks, World Athletics or continental governing bodies typically only keep an official U20 World Record list ("junior") and a U18 World Best list ("youth"). Having record lists that are incomplete and not official seems like a poor choice. I am not nominating the Europe U23 list and South America U23 list for deletion as these have official records kept by European Athletics Association and Atletismo Sudamericano. It's definitely a lot of work to put lists like this together, so I suggest that whoever made this article save a copy in the event this and the articles below get deleted. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e: unofficial list, original research, incomplete tables):

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (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/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see two different rationales for deletion; that these are original research, and that there isn't coverage of this type of world record. The continental lists are also incomplete. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the World list, it's officially maintained by Athletics Weekly here: "World Under 23 Best Performances" That list is outdated, but GBR Athletics was acquired by Athletics Weekly a few years ago and their records went under the AW paywall, so I think that's where the most recent list would be. World Athletics also makes references to "world under-23 bests" in their writing e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] "Kirdyapkina, the wife of Sergey the reigning and two-time World 50km champion, was rewarded with a World U23 best", so I think they must maintain or reference some authoritative list otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to times that way. --Habst (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval on the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of world under-23 bests in athletics per explanation of Habst. – Editør (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteaus

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

Several of WP policies are in question here:

"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" -- this list has many neologisms, and most entries, while intuitive in their derivation, do not or cannot have reliable sources. A good many of the links point to wiktionary, which is not a reliable source in itself.
The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear. There is extensive debate here, here and here. Without a clear definition and consensus, the debate of what to include is constant.
The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is unmanageably long with marginal added value: neologisms that are not used beyond the initial introduction, company/brand names, multiple spins on Reaganomics and Brexit, geographic locations (which has its own article with similar sourcing issues), for example.
The list is barely encyclopedic. It feels more suitable as a project for linguists (again, still debating the definition) or within a dictionary. A few examples in the parent article(s) are all that is needed to make the point for encyclopedic purposes. While many of the entries here are interesting for "so that's where the term comes from" reasons, collecting them on a single page here does not seem to meet WP's objectives, and collecting them all is not practical or possible. HalJor (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" - sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?

"The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear" - it has two definitions, the usual meaning ("portmanteau word", or blend, the subject of this list and the linked article) and "portmanteau morph".

"The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT" - if it's too long then remove any without sources.

"The list is barely encyclopedic" - Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.

I was thinking "Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this should be deleted or redirected to the Wiktionary category, after the references that support an entry in the list are moved to the relevant Wiktionary pages", but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Keep. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?" Quite a few are dubious. e.g. "flounder" links here which says "First recorded in 1570–80; perhaps blend of flounce and founder" (inconclusive) and here which adds "or perhaps symbolic, fl- frequently beginning words connected with swift or sudden movement". Also e.g. "sedge" references this which says "First recorded before 900; Middle English segge, Old English secg; akin to saw 1; presumably so named from its sawlike edges" which is similarly inconclusive but doesn't mention the blend. These are just the first two examples I checked in response here. HalJor (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there..." That guideline also notes "the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited" which comes back to one of the earlier points in this nomination. It is far easier to cite a reliable source for the existence of a word (and its spelling) than the definitive etymology of the word (which doesn't always exist beyond being intuitive/OR). The Q-U list is also prone to be far less dynamic than the one under debate here, raising the maintainability concern. HalJor (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "sedge" was unlikely and removed it after checking the source, that's why I added "that support an entry in the list". Maintainability is no more of a concern here than in any other article that has content added without sources. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Wiktionary already has wikt:Category:English blends (which is already linked from the Portmanteau article), a much more comprehensive list (with almost 7500 (!) entries), and actually suited to a dictionary. It's also worth noting that the current article should probably have been named "English portmanteaus" instead, since it only seems to cover those, but that's beside the point now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICT is as valid here as for List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the example in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more valid here because this is a bare list without any encyclopedic content...any such background content can and already does exist at the main article on blend words, rendering this unnecessary. As already pointed out, the Wiktionary category already contains ~7500 entries (and that doesn't include all the company names and stuff), rendering this pretty unmanageable. It's also got generally ambiguous inclusion criteria, since what constitutes a blend word is somewhat subjective. The comparison between the two cases isn't particularly appropriate, which is why articles should be judged on their own merits. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The definition of "portmanteau" seems WP:OBVIOUS to me, but any confusion can be cleared up here by Merriem-Webster. Portmanteaus and blends are synonymous terms. Also, with 871,806 pageviews and 252 daily views, the article has to be providing some kind of value that merits inclusion. Enix150 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For something with an "obvious" definition, there are countless edge cases, along with plenty of words with uncertain/theoretical etymologies. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an interesting essay, but in no way does it define official policy or guidelines. As I was saying before, most of these "uncertain/theoretical etymologies" appear to be quite WP:OBVIOUS to the average English-speaking reader. Enix150 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking WP:OBVIOUS for some reason, but that's part of an essay about writing better articles, and it talks about including enough, but not too much detail to provide context to readers who might not otherwise know about it. This has absolutely no bearing on the article in question, which is whether or not this is a list that warrants an article (hint: it isn't). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I removed two bad entries. Any without their own dedicated article, or enough coverage in a different article, should be removed. Dream Focus 13:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You gave no actual rationale behind your "keep" vote, nor have you addressed the specific concerned raised in the nomination or further on in the discussion. Further, you haven't explained why things as disparate as animals, companies, random objects, etc etc, should be grouped in the same list merely because their name shares some superficial linguistic characteristic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everything listed has its own article, its a valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not, because having an index of articles based on a superficial characteristic of the words used to represent any underlying concepts is not a valid navigational purpose. We'd no more have a full alphabetical listing of all the articles on Wikipedia (which would actually be more useful). This is not a valid keep rationale. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The criteria for inclusion are clear. The list is not complete, but this is not a valid reason for deletion. Overall, having a list of such examples seems to be helpful for a reader who does not know much about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDICT. Specifically, since Wikipedia articles are organized based on concepts and not the words used to name those concepts, indexing articles by some quality of the words used to name them is out of scope. In addition, per WP:LISTCRITERIA, editors should not "synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." In other words, unless reliable sources discuss e.g. Hvaldimir, leopon, and crocoduck as members of a coherent category of things, Wikipedia should not imply that such a category exists. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course RS discuss portmanteau words as a concept. And since we have a big page about portmanteau words, having such a list as a supplement seems to be reasonable. We have many lists that illustrate concepts, there is nothing wrong with this. This page is not a dictionary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's the rub. Sources from fields such as linguistics discuss blend words as words. In linguistics and allied fields, words are a concept of interest. Compare this to e.g. List of mammal genera: plenty of reliable sources in biology discuss mammals as animals. I don't know of any sources, however, that discuss e.g. animals with blend-word names as animals, nor food with blend-word names as a style of cuisine, nor political movements with blended names as a political philosophy, etc. In fields such as biology, cooking, or politics, word formation is not usually a concept of interest. The grouping in this article is based on labels rather than concepts (NOTDICT) and created by Wikipedians (WP:SYNTH). Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a clearly notable list, the topic being discussed as a set in numerous sources (ranging from articles like https://www.nationalworld.com/news/offbeat/14-portmanteaus-words-and-their-meanings-such-as-brexit-netflix-podcast-pokemon-and-metaverse-4107705 to books like Stone, L. (2015). Language for Life: Where Linguistics Meets Teaching. Taylor & Francis;Goddard, C. (2018). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic MetaLanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. or Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending (see In particular the article "Portmanteaus as general templates" (2012). De Gruyter Mouton. and so on), easily available online for those who don't have a library. -Mushy Yank. 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid source demonstrating any kind of notability, and yours is not a valid keep rationale. You can't just wave some low-quality listicle clickbait churn content like this around and go omg omg NLIST NLIST haha keep. The overall topic of portmanteaus is notable, which is clear, and no one is remotely disputing, and that's all you get from your other sources, the overall topic, not a list. The question is whether Wikipedia should try to compile a list of every single goddamn one of them. And the answer is, no of course not. Because among other reasons (repeat after me, everyone), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and you haven't addressed this concern, or any of the others raised in the course of the discussion. Just because a topic is notable does not mean that Wikipedia editors need to compile a list of every goddamn single example of such topic (a list rife with edge cases to boot). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NLIST, a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. And portmanteaus have been covered as a group or set by multiple independent reliable sources, including 1, 2, and 3. WP:NOTDICT is not violated here: the guideline notes that a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), but this isn't really about a set of meaning but rather is a list of items that happen to be words. And WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem to be an issue here; the set is pretty well-defined to be only those with Wikipedia articles—a perfectly permissible thing in light of WP:LSC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RTH. NLIST seems met. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Party

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

This is a small, single state, third-party in the United States which has as of this nomination only contested a single election. Fails WP:NORG. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, United States of America, and Kentucky. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign or 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. Obviously not a real party, just a mechanism to get her on the ballot in that state since she couldn't as a Green for some reason. Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I filled in the number of votes and percentage from the Kentucky State site. The second source here says that to form a party you have to get 2% of the vote, and Stein got 0%. I assume that now the proposed party will not be an official Kentucky party, at least until another attempt to create it and get the votes. The "party" is not mentioned in Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign, and is simply listed next to Stein's name in the 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. I suppose there could be a redirect to that, but unless information is added to that article, at least in the form of a source, the redirect won't be very useful. There is only one reasonable source; others are just mentions. Lamona (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the KYP had nothing to do with Jill Stein besides nominating her. They have bylaws and a notable member with a Wikipedia page (Geoff Young)

Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://thekentuckian.bearblog.dev/ is their website (Young is listed as Party Treasurer) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we need sources that are substantially about the party. It would also be good to finally determine if the party is "official" or not, and where we can confirm that. Lamona (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Kentucky Party is "a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power," making it a political party. However, it does not have automatic ballot access; As a result, the party must place its candidates on the ballot via petition, as demonstrated in the 2024 presidential election, where they collected 5,000 signatures statewide.

The party has local coverage [5][6] and plans to nominate candidates statewide in 2026, 27, and 28 (per their website) Microplastic Consumer (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jill Stein 2024 presidential campaign#Kentucky, without prejudice to later recreation. Right now, there doesn't seem to be anything beyond local notability and the arguably-stunt of placing Stein on their ballot. If they survive and expland as plnned to nominate statewide candidates in future years, then the article can be recreated. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky. If they manage to survive to nominate candidates in future elections, or if substantial sourcing develops about the party that covers more information about the party than just announcing its creation, I would be supportive of recreating the article. Right now, however, the party is a minor organization whose sole accomplishment is nominating a third-party presidential candidate for one election in one state. Windfarmer — talk 07:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weet-Bix cards

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

Not one independent RS is in the article. Searching only turns up trivial mentions in RS without anything usable in an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I‘m not sure what is meant by RS but I have carefully assembled the albums and card lists from my own set. What is the reason for wanting to delete this page? A lot of NZ collectors use this. Tewheke (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RS means reliable source (WP:RS). You may want to read through WP:OR and WP:NOT. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing wrong with having a collection of trading cards available for all to see but unless there are significant secondary sources accompanying the content, Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is clearly not an appropriate subject for Wikipedia. This would be better hosted somewhere like a private blog. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge consider instead a merge or expansion with the main article Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards section once enough Reliable Sources has been filled in, since its a related to a historically notable product after all.Villkomoses (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify worthy subject but the article just isn't there now. Go back and work on it and see if you can get it to a point where it can justify its place here. Otherwise, sadly will have to go. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards - Since the subject is already covered on the parent article, a Redirect would be the preferred WP:ATD here. As the small bit of information included in this article outside of the list of cards is already included at the target, including the sources, no Merge is necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weet-Bix#Weet-Bix cards is a sensible AtD. Sources inadequate to pass GNG as except for the Howieson & Marsden source they are non-independent, database/catalogue and a blog. Rupples (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama–Penn State football rivalry

AfDs for this article:

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

Matchup has only been played 15 times ever; only twice this millennium _pbp 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify a concern above, the crux of this article isn't really GNG, it's more UNDUE, and the general idea that "does this topic warrant a stand-alone article?" I think there's a clear consensus that we DON'T need an article about every pair of teams that have played 15 times; even though each of those are likely to pass GNG because every football game played in the past few decades has a few newspaper or online articles written about it. Also relevant is NOTINHERITED; just because the Alabama and Penn State football teams are notable doesn't mean they meeting is too. _pbp 20:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources posted in this discussion establish that the rivalry is notable outside of the teams individual notabilities as they discuss the rivalry itself in detail. The wast majority of team matchups in sports are not considered anything special and do not get significant coverage written about them. This one does. Alvaldi (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Alabama, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nomination does not address any policy rationale as to why this should be deleted, a very similar problem that this article's second AfD had six years ago. That AfD was a unanimous keep, as was the first one, and I'm not sure that anything has changed to overturn the prior overwhelming consensus. The fact that the teams have played "only twice this millennium" is entirely irrelevant to the notability of the article as notability is not temporary. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The thing that has changed since the first two AfDs is that we have tightened standards on what constitutes a true rivalry. If we are simply judging whether is a true "rivalry", I think the answer is "no". At the prior AfD, I noted: "Personally, I don't this is a 'rivalry' at all. There's no geographic tie, no regularity of play or scheduling, no fan base hatred, etc." I voted to "keep" because I have long believed that historically significant series can be notable ever where they are not true rivalries. My view on that point has not gained a lot of traction. Cbl62 (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the single decade (1981-90) when Alabama and Penn State played regular-season games every year, they have only met five times (1959, 1975, 1979, 2010, and 2011). I think this is really stretching the bounds of what can be considered either a rivalry or a notable series. With the expanded playoffs, it will become increasingly common for major programs like these to meet more frequently. This is probably setting a precedent to include yet more "non-rivalry" rivalries just because there are a couple of pregame articles hyping to the series as a rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If several independent and reliable sources significantly cover series of matchups between two teams as a rivalry over a significant period of time, as is the case here, then I see no problem having an article on said rivalry. Alvaldi (talk) 09:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like PCN02WPS said, there is no policy reason stated to delete. Just because the rivalry hasn't been played recently doesn't mean GNG hasn't been passed. Article has sources from local newspapers, non-local newspapers, ESPN, AP. Esb5415 (talk) (C) 00:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because GNG has been passed doesn't necessarily merit a STAND-ALONE article _pbp 20:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really difficult one, because sources say it's a rivalry, but it's also not a rivalry. Instead they had one famous bowl game followed by a 10 years when they played each other where both teams were really good, leading some sportswriters to call it a rivalry, but many others such as [7], [8] and [9], [10] don't. I think the question really is - can a group of games between two teams be notable for reasons other than being a rivalry? Because this might get this article to a keep and move, but I'm not sure what a better title would be. If not, delete. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of teams have played each other many times over the years, but that doesn't make it a rivalry. There is nothing of substance in this article that indicates why anyone should care about the fact that they've played each other, just a list of match-ups, indicating it's WP:SYNTH – no indication it's "historically significant." Reywas92^Talk 03:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Personal opinions of individual editors on whether this should be called a rivalry or not are irrelevant as there are several significant sources that speak of this as a rivalry, including Bama, PSU rivalry back after 20 years, Alabama, Penn State Renew Rivalry Of Respect, Intersectional rivalries becoming distant and Alabama-PSU rivalry has produced classic moments Alvaldi (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But there's also many sources which don't. That's exactly the problem with this - "rivalry" gets thrown around a lot in American sports journalism without actually referring to what would be considered an actual rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 14:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several significant sources discussing their matchups clearly describe this as a rivalry and it easily passes WP:GNG. We do not ignore such significant coverage just because we can find some sources that don't mention the word rivalry in them. And it may not be much of a rivalry today but notability is not temporary. Alvaldi (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG doesn't automatically mean STAND-ALONE article. Just because the Alabama and Penn State football teams are notable doesn't mean they meeting is too _pbp 20:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the history of their meetings, i.e. their rivalry, has received enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG and thus is suitable for a stand-alone article. Alvaldi (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Alvaldi's argument. In my opinion, the rivalry has enough coverage to demand its own page. Madeleine (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notables games are enough for it's own page. But I can agree with the original poster, maybe a renaming of the article, might help..Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though several of the games in the 1980's were big at the time, the series as a whole and its legacy are not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. There is also little if any, intensity between the two schools and their fanbases, thus it does not constitute a rivalry in a traditional sense as well. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Pikhovych

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cook

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

Fails WP:NBASIC. Mostly press releases and trivial mentions. The only potentially useful coverage I could find is her profile in pharmexec.com. C F A 21:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Business. C F A 21:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Shellwood (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was the original creator of the article as a larger effort to provide coverage to pharmaceutical scientists and while writing it was really struggling to find sources. Now that Grail isn't as significant of a company as when I first wrote the article, I accept that this wasn't worth the effort. Chrisvanlang (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and article author that article fails WP:GNG Nnev66 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia isn't Linked-in. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim A. Abdullahi

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

Fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. These sources are clear PRs and paid pieces hidden under the umbrella of brown envelope journalism. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A well written article with promotional and puff pieces for the sake of Notability and yet nothing is notable about the subject. Indeed, a look at this this and this is a testament of BEJ Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the criteria for politicians as SAs are not inherently notable. Sources does not help to establish the general notability criteria. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Basintale

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

Fails all ramifications of WP:NPOL and a cursory search does not help. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Africa, and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This does not fail WP:NPOL subject is the Deputy Communications Officer of the largest opposition party in Ghana who have currently won elections in Ghana. And he played a critical role in his party getting into power. There are so many third party sources about him and his work. User:Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owula kpakpo being Deputy Communications Officer of the largest opposition party in Ghana who have currently won elections in Ghana. And he played a critical role in his party getting into power does not satisfy the criteria. WP:NPOL clearly stated that Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are notable. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. Ibjaja055 (talk) 11:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when they say has held National Office you think being elected deputy communication officer of the biggest opposition party in Ghana now the Party elect is not a national position? Or to you national should be government appointment? I don't think that is what satisfying notability is all about. Mind you we can survey 100 Ghanaian Wikipedia editors about this subjects notability in Ghana something you lack context about. Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Owula kpakpo, NPOL is about elected politicians in government offices. You do not understand how NPOL works if you think otherwise. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo Thank you for that question. National position of the WP:NPOL means the office of the head of state or head of government, members of the national legislatures, cabinet ministers and other key national roles which included Supreme Court Justices. There is no need to carry out any survey in Ghana, no original research is needed for notability. You can read it up here. I firmly believe that a deputy communication officer, not even the president, vice president, secretary, or communication officer, but a deputy communication officer does not fall into the national position stipulated in WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe strongly that the subject passes WP:GNG. A search on the subject shows that there are several sources on him. Ampimd (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ampimd Yes, there are sources but most of the sources are either interview of how ladies should leave him in peace because he is in a relationship, press releases about his party's election which can be seen here and here. A two independent news media with the same contents, word for word. The rest here, here and here are either interview or press release. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The !keep voters has not provided any source to backup their claim of GNG. The criteria for NPOL isn’t clearly met here. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and it will be challenging to establish the reliability of the sources included in the article per WP:BURDEN.FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the sources or references used can the reliability cannot be established name them so we can respond appropriately to it. Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qazi Nisar Ahmed

AfDs for this article:

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

All sources are either passing mentions or fail WP:SIGCOV Axedd (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Al-Abdulmohsen

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

POV fork of 2024 Magdeburg car attack/WP:BLP1E. No need for standalone article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Terrorism, and Germany. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual has warranted their own article. Haskeymorrison (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. warrants own article. i dont see any reason why it should be deleted. Ashbandicooter (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article. That the article is POV, as you wrote, is a reason to improve it, not a reason to delete it. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The person is famous enough even with the article on Magdeburg attacks Athoremmes (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the person has received a lot of attention from the media and easily meets the notability standards. Theofunny (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep the persons controversial views, ideology, and his role in the Attack make him notable enough for a standalone page. Deleting it would lose important context about his actions and background. Instead, we should focus on improving the article. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not just a "generic" terrorist Braganza (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with the previous reasons stated, this individual's actions and ideology are enough to warrant its own page Fishthatflies (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously per WP:GNG. Plenty of good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even before the attack he had a website, was on BBC and had over 40,000 followers on Twitter Bloxzge 025 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged popularity in social media does not confer sufficient notability for an encyclopaedia article. It's irrelevant. Spideog (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced article!
- Cerium4B • Talk? • 21:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the sources is not the issue. The question of notability and BLP1E are the issues. Spideog (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met here. In addition BLP1E isn't met, given that the event is significant, and the person's role is substantial and well documented. Gust Justice (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep was a borderline notable public figure prior to the attack and complex enough to warrant a separate page Mason7512 (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main article terrorist will try it if the article become famous. Great achievement (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe U:Mason7512 is saying that if perpetrators of criminal or terrorist acts get their own Wikipedia articles that may motivate someone to commit criminal or terrorist acts in hopes of getting their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think that argument is one of the ones considered valid for a keep/merge/delete discussion on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I don't think that's gonna happen Bloxzge 025 (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that he is currently undergoing a trial and is being accused of a crime. Until he is convicted, he will be presumed innocent. QalasQalas (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify an own article.Abstrakt (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient information aside from yesterday's car attack to merit a separate article on the identified suspect. 9March2019 (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article --2A02:3038:201:7EE4:B469:EBE5:1175:5CBB (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The useful information can be merged into the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the same reason Luigi Mangione was kept. Sushidude21! (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bafflingly, was probably notable or close to notable before this happened. What a world we live in. If it turns out to be better to cover as one article, we can merge it later, but he is one of the few mass attackers to not actually be BLP1E. He was a well known Saudi dissident and had lots of pre-attack media coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I read the article, and this person had news media coverage before the car attack took place. I'm not sure how BLP1E applies here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough media attention to warrant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mind the gap 1 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no reliable sources on this person, there is nothing certain about him, including the name or date of birth.Marcelus (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So BBC and Al Jazeera aren't reliable sources? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Der Spiegel, Reuters, not reliable ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A source evaluation would be nice here. What are the sources that cover him before the Christmas incident? Badbluebus (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Magdebourg car attack: Better notable, the prepator article can have nonsense since there are probably poor sources, unlikely the car attack article, in addition, having two articles can be too enough, IMO. Manchesterunited1234 (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are sources pre-attack that focus on him:
BBC News video piece on his website and what he does from 2019, how his website was a "go to resource" for refugees

The Jerusalem Post piece from 2019 on him as a refugee activist

2019 FAZ piece

2017 piece on him from the New Arab

He was covered before this. With the attack it makes this more complicated. Probably a few more, but a lot of it is in German and there's 50+ more articles that quote him, and it's mixed in with breaking news from today so it's hard to sort out. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add these to the talk page to be worked on? Theofunny (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of BLP1E. Some have argued here that he was notable or nearly notable before this event but no article here reflected this alleged prior notability and any article about him would have been nominated for deletion before, as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one. Spideog (talk) 04:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"as suggested by the complete prior lack of interest in creating one", don't think that's true. We don't have articles on plenty of notable people. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? This character only became notable for one act. My point was that prior lack of interest in creating an article underlines his prior lack of notability. Spideog (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of BLP1E, point 3 explains "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.". Event is significant, role was substantial and well documented. --ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this article is about the alleged perpetrator of an attack that happened in Germany in 2024. As we have enough media attention to warrant article, person is almost a notable public figure and because this article of said person will be useful and relevant for later purposes it would be better if we keep this article especially since we have continued to keep the article of Luigi Mangione who happens to be a similar case (as mentioned by an editor). General Phoenix (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not meet WP:BLP1E because neither of points 1 and 3 in that are met: news items about him existed before the event, and he (allegedly) had the main role.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge What was he doing before the attack? He wasn’t widely known and had no significant impact. His fame will be short-lived. While unfortunate, it doesn’t warrant a standalone article. Valorthal77 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I feel like this always happens with these sorts of tragedies, with the perpetrator getting their own article. The info here can easily be merged into the article it is a WP:FORK from. See 2016 Berlin truck attack#Anis Amri, Halle synagogue shooting#Perpetrator, Christchurch mosque shootings#Perpetrator for examples on how very similar articles handle this.Yeoutie (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of the information in this article is already in the attack's article.675930s (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons mentioned above: The person has received enough media coverage to be considered relevant enough to justify [his] own article.. waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage had existed prior to attack, so WP:BLP1E should not apply. S5A-0043^Talk 12:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not a case of 1E, the subject has had coverage amongst many RSes even before the incident. EmperorOtherstuff (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability arguments of nearly everyone else. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. I think it's clear that this not a BLP1E issue because he had coverage prior to the attack. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage prior to the attack was inadequate to confer notability. Most activists are not notable even when their activity attracts occasional media notice; that is part of the game. Getting one's name in the newspapers is not enough to establish notability in an encyclopaedia (see WP:NOTNEWS: "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be", etc., etc.). That is normal. Some activists do go on to establish notability, but this motorist had not done so before his Christmas outing. Following major news events, many Wikipedia editors, especially those comparatively new to the project, those less familiar with policies and their import, and those who do not distinguish properly between newspaper notability and encyclopaedia notability, become overexcited. For now, at least, the subject's details can be covered in the main article. Spideog (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Abdulmohsen was very unusual, being a Saudi ex-Muslim who campaigned against Islam. From this BBC item, he was "a very unusual citizen". There is the argument in Wikipedia that something can be inherently notable. By the way: I'm usually a deletionist. --A bit iffy (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the arguments in favor of it above. Merge arguments suggested by 4 so far are not convincing.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But WHY do you claim they are "not convincing"? A driveby assertion is not an argument. Spideog (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike most mass killers, Al-Abdulmohsen had already become newsworthy five years before the attack. The attack may be the most notable thing he has done with his life, but it's not the only thing.Mikalra (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, newspaper "notability" is not encyclopaedia notability. This mistake is common throughout this discussion. He wasn't even impressively notable in the newspapers: he just appeared in them rarely, in a minor way. Even by media standards, he was a very minor figure. Spideog (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is notable for the attack only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs)
Delete as the subject fails the basic notability guideline at WP:GNG. WP:GNG says a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and that 'sources' should be secondary sources. However, most, if not all of the sources used for this subject are only supported by recent news media articles, which, per WP:PRIMARYNEWS are primary sources if they are any of the following: eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, Investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds - which most of them are. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was actually pretty well known for being an anti-Islam activist before he killed 5 people. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per WP:BLP1E into the attack article. Most of this is just about the attack and his motivation. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; I would normally be opposed to articles like this being created so soon after the event, but he seems to be a complex individual with more information constantly emerging and the article covers a lot of points really well already. We can always review again whether or not the article meets notability guidelines in a few weeks/months. Buttons0603 (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack article. All the sources, except one, are primarily related to news about the attack and are dated after it occurred. While the remaining source predates the attack, it is a primary source that has been promoted after the attack by additional "updates". This person is not separately notable, and as the prime suspect is not otherwise notable. Guidelines WP:BLPCRIME applies and Wikipedia should not have a separate article about the alleged perpetrator before he has been convicted. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale has been offered. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3 "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented." ProudWatermelon (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the article isn't WP:BLP1E though, it is that the article fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources it uses are primary, and GNG is very specific that sources should be secondary. WP:PRIMARYNEWS says recent news media articles, which most of the sources in the article are, are primary sources if they are eyewitness news, breaking news, reports on events, human interest stories, interviews and reports of interviews, investigative reports, or editorials, opinions, and op-eds. I don't think many of the sources used escape this test.

As this rules out the use of most of the cited sources to establish notability, we can categorically say it fails the GNG notability test, so must go. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2024 Magdeburg car attack. I don't think this man would have been notable before the terrorist attack, and it is due to the terrorist attack that he is notable. Pretty much all sources regarding this man are in relation to the terrorist attack. For these reasons, I believe that this article should be merged into the article on the terrorist attack. IJA (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this article is about the alleged perpetrator of the attack, he played an important role in the incident. So, it is only natural that there is a separate article about him, because people who are directly involved in such a major incident, especially when there is clear evidence, should indeed be recorded. Ariankntl (talk) 11:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its important for people to remember this moment, so the victim will not be forgotten. Donpolloinohio (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvincing and insufficient grounds. This is not a vote! Valorthal77 (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think...we are at a consensus. 47.157.126.174 (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:BLP1E, person is only known for this attack. The keep votes are symptomatic of the bias within Wikipedia. If this had been a white terrorist massacring a bunch of brown people, all those voting keep would be voting delete e.g. Brenton Tarrant. Obi2canibe (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taleb was notable for his activism prior to this attack. Firecat93 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies, and his activity was limited to some posts on X. Valorthal77 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources cover for WP:GNG. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is notable per GNG. There aren't any reasons to remove or merge that article. Karol739 (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This is a strange nomination. Individual is clearly notable (including for his work, which received coverage in RS prior to attack). Firecat93 (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge: Honestly fine with either, but I strongly oppose deleting. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are substantial enough details available on the main article regarding his motive, background, etc, then not to mention the WP:RS updates in subsequent days ahead.

TheRevisionary (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He was not notable before the event, but there was some coverage of his activities, notably on New Arab, BBC, Jerusalem Post, The World, Der Spiegel, Business Insider, in addition to this article in Arabic were he was accused of being responsible for a Omani lesbian's suicide. This certainly does not make him a WP:BLP1E case. In aggregate, he should be considered notable.--Ideophagous (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above
Waleed (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per a number of above arguments. Relinus (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments above. Skitash (talk) 03:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Removing the article about the Christchurch perpetrator reflects sensitivity to the victims and the Muslim community affected. However, maintaining this Assault Perpetrator article ignores this principle. Is the suffering of the victims in Magdeburg considered less important than the Christchurch case? This difference not only reflects inconsistency, but can also be considered discriminatory.

Phantasmcoa (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with notability, not sensitivity. Perpetrators of genocide like Hitler, 9/11 terrorists, and war criminals like Assad all have Wikipedia pages. Firecat93 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't meet WP:BLP1E due to notability prior to the attack. Puhala,ny (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was notable even before the attack. Keivan.f^Talk 20:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable. TheBritinator (talk) 11:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable. Mmnashrullah (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep widely known per above.

QalasQalas (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was arguably notable before the attack and has received very extensive coverage in recent days. From a content organization point of view, it would be unbalanced to place all the well-cited content in this article into the 2024 Magdeburg car attack article but yet the information here is pertinent. Greenshed (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Atlanta Silverbacks roster

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

Subject lacks notability under WP:LISTN due to a lack of sourcing. PROD was removed with the claim that sources exist, however none have been added to the article and I could not find any in a BEFORE, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Same situation as this AfD. Svartner (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fartcoin

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

No notability; only two reliable (WP:RSP) sources listed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see WP:SIGCOV besides a single spurt of attention. E_F⁵ 19:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For the sources issue, I added a new source from Fortune (magazine) which should be reputable. As for the merits, I'm going to copy-paste my justification for why this shouldn't be speedy deleted (with some additional arguments):

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this coin is the best indicator for the post-Trump meme coin bubble. It has absolutely no intrinsic value and has reached a billion dollar valuation. This is absolutely notable, regardless of how stupid it sounds. If we list Dogecoin, we should be listing this. It took Dogecoin 7 years to reach a billion dollar valuation. It took Fartcoin 2 months. When Fartcoin hit a $720 million valuation, it was reported by HappyRich Investor that it was worth more than 40% of all listed public companies in the US. Imagine how much more valuable it is than listed public companies now. Chill guy, which we have an article for, is in part notable for its meme coin as well; that topped out at around $600 million. It has received reporting in mainstream sources such as Salon, Yahoo! Finance, NBC News, and Fortune. It was mentioned on The Stephen Colbert Show and CNBC. I get that it sounds stupid but it is indicative of a very real post-Trump crypto bubble. Aurangzebra (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Aurangzebra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

pls keep it Hellooooooooooo31654 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I approved the AfC for this stub article, reluctantly, based on its coverage in multiple reliable sources (which is usually enough to survive an AfD, and that's the guideline we're supposed to follow). I agree that this may be a flash in the pan, so if many others think this is WP:TOOSOON, I would be fine with alternately merging the content to List of cryptocurrencies. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, we need reliable references over a period of time per WP:SUSTAINED Cinadon36 07:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - this token is directly responsible for the first crypto millionaire AI and is absolutely a notable development in both the cryptocurrency and meme coin space EveSturwin (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of cryptocurrencies. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the topic of this article will remain notable aside from its brief burst of news coverage, but Fartcoin is clearly notable enough to be included in the list.

Noah ^💬 19:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve updated the article with the relevant details. This meme coin was conceived by a jailbroken AI model called Truth Terminal in the Infinite Backrooms. Truth terminal has a website you can visit and an independent researcher Andy Ayrey that created it. The connection to Marc Andreessen, the world’s most successful venture capitalist, should be noted. This token and others like it have spawned a new category of meme coins called “Sentient Memes” due to their connection to AI. EveSturwin (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be noted that Truth Terminal was created in June 2024 and Fartcoin was created on Oct 18 2024, which provides references over an extended time period. I’m happy to discuss further as I am one of few people that know this space very well. EveSturwin (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. But also add to List of cryptocurrencies. Although the name appears in headlines (as clickbait) most of those articles are about meme crypto and talk only briefly about fartcoin. None of them have info that would support the content in the article. The majority of the sections here are not directly about fartcoin, and the only article that covers it in any depth is the FastCompany one. The remainder is OR, quoting online discussions and X postings. Lamona (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of cryptocurrencies. As the article currently is right now, it does not pass WP:GNG as it fails to have multiple sources that have significant coverage. FastCompany and Fortune do count, but NBC News uses it as a segue into memecoins. The rest are either self-published or generally unreliable. Merging doesn't seem like a bad option, though, considering it has news coverage that people might be looking for. Kline • talk • contribs 03:22, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Kline. I agree that it merits being listed in List of cryptocurrencies. The FastCompany article can be the source. Lamona (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can be improved by reliable, truthful sources. KOLANO12 3 21:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental Étude (disambiguation)

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

Not a proper dab page. There is one match (except as a plural), a couple of partial matches and two entries with just "Transcendental(e)" in their titles. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SETINDEX (similar names and similar subjects). [A useful lis(z)t, that may be renamed and expanded]. -Mushy Yank. 20:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 20:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clearly useful list of similarly-titled works. Have added a couple more incoming redirects. PamD 09:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on changes since nomination. YuniToumei (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a general encyclopedia. I created this page. It gathers together articles/titles/works of art of a similar nature which yer average hopeful reader might come across. The purpose of dab pages is to direct the inquiring seeker towards their intellectual goal, however fuzzily it may be expressed, and hopefully covered by a Wikipedia article. There are hundreds of thousands of other dab pages which deal precisely with exactly one topic. This is not one of them. Cf Ireland (disambiguation) and its talk. Season's greetings, an' all that. MinorProphet (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob David

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

WP:NOTE, subject of article only has two sources discussing his life Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be more specific, searching the subject on Google only brings up two major sources regarding his biography, and searching his name in Farsi doesn't seem to bring other results as well. I previously requested a deletion for the article based on this criteria. Surayeproject3 (talk) 19:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Iran, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:ANYBIO, the reference in Iranica is sufficient to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. I also found this from the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. More appears easily found using the Google search "Jacob David Assyrian Chicago" sans quotation marks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bet further print resources are available, per this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of a person being notable enough for a Wikipedia article, does it matter more the quality of the sources, or the quantity available to write on them? If it's just the above I'm sure I or another editor can work to enhance the article with more information, but I'm gonna keep the deletion discussion open. Surayeproject3 (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's borderline based on the sources, which are pretty thin unless, as Pbritti notes, there are print sources not currently accessible, but I see a bare GNG pass with the Encyclopedia Iranica biography and this article at the Assyrian Cultural Foundation. (It's not an ANYBIO pass, since Encyclopedia Iranica isn't a national directory of biography, but it is SIGCOV and thus contributes to GNG.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon van Buitenen

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

Previously draftified as not ready for mainspace. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prohibits a unilateral move back to draft space, though it is still not ready. However, I feel this fails WP:BIO, and that it will be impossible to assert and to verify notability. It is a pleasant resumé, but not a Wikipedia article. It is also WP:ADMASQ. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astronomy, and Netherlands. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Article makes no claim of significance. But a full consensus here will make it easier to delete another time if it comes to that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently there is coverage only from self-published sources and thus not notable.--C messier (talk) 10:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG pretty clearly, could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2024 (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 keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 05:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lac-Lapeyrère

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND as the community has a population of zero (in the 1996, 2001, 2006, 2011, 2016, and 2021 censuses; I cannot find data on the 1986 or 1991 censuses), and the article is cited only to routine government sources. The only sources found on a WP:BEFORE search are routine or "top 10 places to camp/fish/whatever in quebec". – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 16:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 16:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a legally recognized jurisdiction, so it actually doesn't fail WP:GEOLAND, which says "legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." There are no other real deletion reasons. In fact, nothing wrong with routine government sources - by far most articles on small or unpopulated places only rely on government sources. Furthermore, the unorganized territory articles like this one are needed for consistency and continuity in coverage of locations in Quebec - just look at how many other articles are linked here. I'm normally a deletionist, but this is overzealous application of notability standards, which will set a bad precedent for all other unorganized territories, which in turn will create a huge gap in geographic coverage of Quebec. This will be a net loss to WP. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: Thanks. I will withdraw my nomination. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 05:42, 22 December 2024 (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.

Structural Engineers Association of Alaska

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

Declined prod. Only 2 google news hits which are local press from Anchorage as per WP:AUD. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and Alaska. LibStar (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. Deriannt (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find it listed in "company profile" listings, and there are local notices of meetings and training. Nothing that is both substantial and independent. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Mountain, Alabama

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was soft deleted at AfD in 2021 due to lack of participation. Nothing has changed since that discussion; the rationale still applies.

Topo maps show a ridge called Straight Mountain. There is no sign of a community at the location; this appears to be a WP:GNIS error. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Alabama. –dlthewave ☎ 16:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not clear that this is a notable community rather than a neighborhood. GNIS is inadequate. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Another case of map misreading (or at least wording), it's marked on older topos as "Straight Mountain Ch" a bit south of the current label, and is indeed still a Baptist church. No idea why they put the label where they did but it's obviously just wrong, and it's not a town nor ever was. Mangoe (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. Bhagyalakshmi

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and the notability test hinges on the quality and depth of the sourcing that can be used to independently verify their significance -- but this article is referenced entirely to her own writing metaverifying its own existence in Google Books directory entries rather than any evidence of GNG-building coverage and analysis about her, and the article has been tagged for sourcing problems since 2010 without ever having any better sourcing added.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and India. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have found reviews of three of her books on JSTOR, and added them to the article. There was also a more trivial mention on Proquest. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I researched the subject and found the author's name mentioned in some old books. Additionally, there are a few reviews available on JSTOR. I believe this should be sufficient for an author. Baqi:) (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a BLP, we need a stronger consensus to retain an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has won several regional and national level awards in India and a well known figure in Telugu literature[11]. Deriannt (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Three reviews of three different books, plus two awards, suggests WP:AUTHOR will be met, even if sources are offline. ETA: Proquest comes up what looks like another couple of reviews: Happiness Unbound (Encounters. The Hindu Aug 1, 1999, p. 1) & That's Ok Tammanna And Other Reveries (A tryst with middles and middle class. The Hindu 11 July 2007 p. 1); (full-text not available). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:21, 22 December 2024 (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.

Save America (book)

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

No content that would be sufficient for a separate article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lengthy reviews in two independent and highly notable publications clearly meets the first criteria of WP:NBOOK. --Here2rewrite (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Also, not everything related to Donald Trump is notable by default, including a book that is, in essence, campaign literature. TH1980 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NBOOK. Being a stub is not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — seconded that this passes NBOOK. No, not everything President Trump does is notable, but a book which receives SIGCOV is, in my opinion. A quick Google News search reveals what is, in my opinion, SIGCOV from RSs ranging from the Washington Post to the New York Times to ABC. Lastly, I fail to see how the book being “campaign literature” — or not — pertains to this AfD.MWFwiki (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bibliography of Donald Trump. As a practical matter it is unlikely that there will ever be enough about this book for an article. Unlike "art of the deal" this one is a re-hash of already seen photos of events covered in the media, so there is no new content, and from what I understand, nothing that we do not already know. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This needs to be handled carefully. The main question here is less "is this notable" as much as it "is it individually notable from Donald Trump". My concern here is that the coverage for this seems to be pretty light and when it is discussed, it tends to be discussed in relation to his successful 2024 re-election campaign and his plans for if (as this was released prior to the elections) he was re-elected.

So I think that when people are mentioning this in the AfD as campaign literature they're probably concerned that sourcing coverage tends to shift from the book and its contents to coverage of the (then) impending elections as a whole - as was the case with CBS's coverage of the book. I'm going to see what I can find, but offhand I can see concerns that the existing coverage isn't exactly for the book itself. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was initially skeptical that there was enough out there but a search did bring up quite a bit - it's not a lot, mind you. Most tended to focus on the claims of Mark Zuckerberg committing election fraud and threats to arrest him if this was done again. But there's just enough to say that this passes NBOOK.

ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metametaethics

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

Surprisingly, there are quite a few results on Google Scholar for metametaethics (or variants such as meta-metaethics) but almost all of them are just passing mentions. And many of the passing mentions are explicitly skeptical of the term:

Even Dreier (who is most associated with the term) does not seem to go into much depth about what metametaethics is in the papers I could find [12][13][14]. This Spanish paper seems to suggest that the term has not been used in a unified manner in the literature up to this point and most treatments are isolated examples without any comprehensive coverage. Having said all that, there do appear to be some sources that give more than a passing mention (e.g. [15][16]), so I wanted to hear other editors' thoughts. For me, these sources give too scattered and scant discussion to meet WP:GNG, particularly when each author uses the term in a different way (implying there is no unified concept to cover). Maybe this term will be used much more in the future, but I think it is currently WP:TOOSOON. Shapeyness (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shapeyness (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough for inclusion. Deriannt (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Hanták

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

Hanták played 392 minutes of professional league in 2012 before disappearing later that year. In terms of reliable secondary sources, the only coverage I found is a passing mention on Dnes24. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gen Z Manifesto

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

This fails every part of WP:NFILM or the explanatory essay at WP:NTV. A cursory search doesn't bring anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Africa and Ghana. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Entertainment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTVNATL. Deriannt (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All the three sources used are unreliable. They are either social media posts or a YouTube link. Unless reliable and independent sources are provided, this article doesn't make the criteria for WP:NFILM or WP: GNG Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Twitter and YouTube cannot be used to establish notability. NFILM is not met here either. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and the article does not even attempt to use decent sources! forget reliable FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. BEFORE search shows only self-published social media posts, mainly by GHOne TV. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays (musical)

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

The article fails WP:N in any sort of ways as I could not find third party reliable notability to assert creation of an independent article. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Theatre, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This musical had a substantial run in Paris followed by a French tour. It drew reviews from The New York Times as well as French media. The musical helps to fill out en.Wikipedia's coverage of European musicals, which are underserved here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers thank you for your expansion of the article and finding the French sources. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you search for a very common word on Google or other databases, like "Holidays", you should add another, more specific search term, like the name of the director, or the name of the book writer, which helps filter out the noise in the search results. Also, regarding foreign topics, like a French musical, Google News does not find a lot of the foreign sources, so you have to use a plain Google search and try a few likely specific search terms to get an idea of whether something is notable. Happy editing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources currently cited in the article. Additionally, a French stage production getting reviewed in The New York Times shows global coverage.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources provided after expansion show SIGCOV, plenty more sources appear when searching in French. Agree with the above in regards to NYT coverage. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 19:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen Cloud

AfDs for this article:

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seeing that this is a second nomination, a bit more in the nom. might have been helpful. I don't think there is a Schengen Cloud, nor ever really was. European countries do make certain requirements on the transit and storage of European data, that prevents processing in the U.S. in many cases, but the US companies offering cloud services have adapted to this by providing guaranties that data is not transited or processed outside of Europe. There is no parallel cloud service. Companies merely adapted to the political and legal reality. So, on that basis, I do not think there is an article here. It might be a useful footnote in another article. Having said that, some editors at the last AfD felt there were the sources for something. Revirvlkodlaku What is your analysis of the sources in the article? And is there a redirect/merge target available? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is sourced and no arguments have been brought up why the sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what sources, precisely, do you think establish notability? Not all sources establish notability, per WP: SIGCOV. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the nominator. Doing a BEFORE is their job. Cortador (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. I asked what sources you think establish notability. Whether you think the nominator did a BEFORE is totally irrelevant to what I'm asking. You are the one who issued a Keep vote, not them. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edward Snowden#Europe. There are some sources that speak about this. For instance The Politics of data Transfer (2017) and Sustainability in a Digital World (2014). However what these describe is the idea, and that firmly wedded to the Snowden revelations that led to the consideration and politics of this. That second source states To cope with this challenge, Germany and France were considering a so-called "Schengen Cloud" system... That is, the source verifies that this is not something that exists, and certainly not by that name. It was a political idea occasioned by surveillance of European's private information by the U.S. The source explains the diplomatic hurdles that would exist and points out that it would not altogether work. It was a political idea that never went beyond the talking stage. But the talk is still information. Not about an actual Schengen Cloud - that does not exist and we should not have a page on it. But we should mention it, and the Snowden page appears to be the most appropriate article to cover this as it has a reactions section, and specifically a European reactions section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the Edward Snowden article, as suggested above. I couldn't find enough sourcing to establish this subject as independently notable, but sources indicate that discussions surrounding the concept of a "Schengen cloud" arose as a result of Snowden's whistleblowing. It is my judgement that this makes the Snowden article a valid merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of yellowface

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

This is a messy case of what should be named List of media featuring yellowface. Like many such lists, it is poorly referenced, and fails WP:NLIST. Even through the list has a 'notes' column, for many - most - entries there is no explanation/commentary why they are included here (nor reference). This is a messy WP:OR. What little can be salvaged here could perhaps be merged to Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater, which is where yellowface redirects too, but I doubt there is much we can use here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Popular culture, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a simple Gbooks search shows plenty of sources addressing the topic as a set, therefore meeting WP:NLIST. WP:SPLITLIST also applies. Renaming as suggested would be a good idea; and adding missing sources, of course but this can happen through normal editing. -Mushy Yank. 18:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 18:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed it should be renamed, but whatever the name a list of films including yellowface seems like a sensible complement to the main article, and one that's easy to source. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here; this is in abysmal shape and is beyond salvage. Most of the entries are unsourced, relying instead on editor WP:OR, and what sources there are, in the vast majority of cases, don't back up inclusion as an example of "yellowface", a necessarily nuanced and messy concept. This is a poor topic for a list per WP:LISTCRIT, which advises clear, unambiguous selection criteria. Prominent examples (thinking Mickey Rooney, right off the top of my head) can and should be discussed at the main article. But just because the overall topic is notable, that doesn't invite editors to try to compile a list of every single example (especially with such vague inclusion criteria to boot). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Riordan

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prod was removed on technical grounds (article was ineligible for prods). Anyway, I can't find any sources, current referencing is terrible. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG, not all sportspeople are encyclopedic (notable). This is just poorly referenced fan piece of OR on a non-notable person. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is the second time that this article has been created and I still can't see any evidence of WP:SIGCOV. The best that I can find is Am-Pol Eagle, if that is a reliable source. We would need more than one source, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:25, 22 December 2024 (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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. Will do a bold redirect. (non-admin closure)‎ Plasticwonder (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adroitness

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

The concept is not supported by the references, and is a matchup of both synthesized references which do not feature the word "adroitness" at all. WP:DICTDEF also plays a role here because the only references to this word are dictionary pages. On google scholar, even just a cursory search for this term nets only one result which is related to psychology, which this article cites already. The other issue is that none of the other references mention adroitness at all, not to mention the blatantly contradictory statement in the lede. Plasticwonder (talk) 11:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2024 (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.

Walden Asset Management

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and Massachusetts. Imcdc Contact 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails SIGCOV. Deriannt (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I can find are "company profiles" and non-interesting short pieces about the comings and goings of executives. It is a subsidiary of Boston Trust but we don't have an article for that so there's no redirect or merge target. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Cannarozzo

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Deriannt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruse Wane

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

Insufficient reliable and independent sources to establish Notability. The article also fails the 12 criteria of WP:Music. I would have send it to draft but I discovered that four or five drafts have been abandoned before under different names. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Caribbean, and Jamaica. Ibjaja055 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is properly written and sourced. It is sourced with numerous independent references. Why has it been cited for deletion over the thousands of articles on wikipedia that are no where even as close to being as properly sourced with independent references as this one. People Being Malicious just for the sake of being Malicious needs to be stopped. Edward Myer (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a reason earlier drafts of this article were rejected. Bruse Wayne is a serial collaborator who has indeed been mentioned in reliable sources, but almost always in conjunction with the main artists who utilized him as a one-time guest. He has some interviews asking his opinion on rap history because he's been around for a long time, but those do not illustrate his individual notability as a recording artist. I can find no reliable reviews for his solo works. The article also says that he is a member of Mantronix, but if so he joined decades after their glory days, he is not mentioned at their article, and a search indicates that he again only appeared as a guest on one song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Deriannt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Past drafts were abandoned years ago. No where does it state an impossible penalty on W:P for having past abandoned drafts. The Subjects notability has strengthen since then. The Article is written clearly with 1st, second and third source references to substantiate the subjects notability. Guest appearances have been update. The subjects birthday has been added and sourced. This article adheres to Wikipedia:Notability numerous reliable and independent sources apart from the subject have been added and citied. Edward Myer (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable discography, charting or label activity. Known more for his connection to notable rappers than his own work, the puffery in the article notwithstanding. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page should not be deleted. Earlier drafts were deleted because of editing mistakes. This article is conise and accurate. The subjects notability has been shown via numerous independent references, and sourcing. The subject has worked with and released music with Kurtis Mantronik who is a considered and Icon in Hip Hop and Pop Music. That alone make the subject notable. The article should not be deleted. The impact of his own musical works has also been established in the article. Do read again. Edward Myer (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edward Myer WP:BLUDGEON. Copypaste spam also removed. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 23:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past drafts were abandoned years ago. No where does it state penalty of W:P for having past abandoned drafts. The Subjects notability has strengthen since then. The Artist is written clearly with 1st, second and third source references to substantiate the subjects notability. Guest appearances have been update. The subjects birthday has been added and sourced. This article adheres to Wikipedia:Notability numerous reliable and independent sources apart from the subject have been added and citied. Edward Myer (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Past drafts were abandoned 4 years ago. No where does it state there is a penalty on W:P for past abandoned drafts. The subjects notability has been strongly established in this article. The article was written clearly with multiple 1st, second and third references, reliable and independent sources Edward Myer (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Edward Myer (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NTVNATL and merge as proposed by the nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Origin theories of Adolf Hitler

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

Some articles are walled gardens.This is more like a walled cesspit, a POV fork that can only survive in isolation. Qwirkle (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Austria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hitler family, which has already dealt with the same issues, and is a "See also" link at the top of the Ancestry section. — Maile (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose it could be a redirect but a search on "origin theories of..." isn't very likely. The topic is covered in Hitler family. Lamona (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([17] [18] [19] [20]) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi per WP:BARTENDER. This close is without prejudice to judiciously merging selected information. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi (A)

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

This article has been around since 2013, yet makes no claim of notability for any of the songs. The only reference is a book called "...130 Popular Songs...", which appears to be just a book of song lyrics, so it does not appear useful as a reliable source. There are a dozen more articles in this set. This article and its siblings appear to violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY or one of the other guidelines on that page. I suspect that List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi could be kept if some reliable sources were added, but the alphabetical directory pages should be deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the 14 other articles of this form should be bundled with this nomination; I shall do so now. There are no sources that suggest this level of detail is encyclopedic in nature; perhaps @Jax 0677: can explain why these database-detailed articles are notable. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I split List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi because it was very long. I will not be upset if this page and others like it no longer exist, but I do suggest redirecting to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi with history in tact so long as that page exists. If that page no longer exists, then I suggest redirecting to Mohammed Rafi with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having recorded thousands of songs in multiple languages, this database cannot be entertained here. Lorstaking (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why must we delete, and not redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Since this is such a large bundled nomination, I want to make sure we have a solid consensus on what should be done with these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The songs do not require this level of detail, maybe they can be sorted into a single article. Xoocit (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, we MUST trim the articles before we merge them. That was the whole point of the split. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Xoocit, is the Merge target article you are suggesting List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi? Please identify a target article whenever you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I don't see a consensus. I'll carry out the consensus but I question the value of having these 14 pages as Redirects to List of songs recorded by Mohammed Rafi since they are unlikely search terms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:R#HARMFUL, "The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are: a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history" / "Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones". --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and merge what's significant. Once you've recorded that many songs, we don't have to list them all, especially if they're not released on their own. Heck, even for major artists the discography usually only lists album names. Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - @Lorstaking:, @Reywas92:, Why must we delete, and not redirect with history? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not opposed to that, but they are unlikely search terms and there aren't pages that link to them so a redirect is kind of pointless. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 23 December 2024 (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.

Indonesian VTuber Awards

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

Similar to the related page Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024, this event does not seem to meet the eligibility criteria of WP:GNG WP:EVENT. It also does not have a reliable source to verify the source of the news. Also, the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: w:id:WP:KONTENKREATOR). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 06:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Indonesia. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 06:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 21 December 2024 (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 merge‎ to Equinox Group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spevak

AfDs for this article:

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

Passing mentions in the RS's in the article - most focus on his company, not him. Potential history of COI per article tag from 2020.

The only article I could find where he is the sole subject is this interview from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/danschawbel/2017/04/07/harvey-spevak-the-leadership-lessons-hes-learned-from-growing-equinox/ Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the prior deletion discussion, this source is a Forbes contributor, so as far as I'm aware it loses its reliability. Notability is not inherited. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Equinox Group. Not enough reliable sourcing by Wikipedia standards for his own article, but Spevak is all over the internet as both a founder and Executive Charmian of Equinix and Equinox Fitness. — Maile (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a good alternative to deletion. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Equinox Group per Maile. Procyon117 (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Equinox Group. Deriannt (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2024 (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.

Pantodapoi

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

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.

I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Endangered Species" (magazine cover)

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

Perhaps the worst WP:REFBOMB I've ever seen. Despite the large number of sources, many don't even even mention "Endangered Species", and none are significant coverage.

In the current version citations 1-5 source the background and do not mention the article at all.

6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 13 are the barest passing mentions of the article.

14 through 20 again are about electoral history but do not even mention the article.

21 is a brief mention where Grunwald says the article didn't hold up and 22 is likewise nothing more than the quote used here.

23-26 are again just passing mentions.

In sum, there's certainly acknowledgement that the magazine's provocative headline was memorably wrong, but there's no substantial analysis of the article or a single source with depth to it to pass GNG – I guess it make sense that the title has simply "(magazine cover)". There's certainly more to be said at Democratic Party (United States)#21st century/Republican Party (United States)#21st century or elsewhere that can reference this, but not a standalone article for this. Reywas92^Talk 05:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to a TBD target. The WP:RS citations 9, 10, 11, and 13 each provide 1-2 paragraphs of coverage of the magazine cover (not the article) as a subject in itself. While references 23, 24, 25, 26 provide only fleeting, or single-sentence, mentions which don't contribute to SIGCOV, the first four (9, 10, 11, 13) are -- by themselves -- enough to sustain the standard of WP:SIGCOV. The fact the article is unnecessarily long and over-referenced doesn't really impact the WP:N of the subject. It could probably use a good trim but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Chetsford (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
9 is a single sentence.11 and 13 are the same source and also a single sentence. 12 simply quotes a single sentence from the article: "As Time magazine reporter Michael Grunwald observed at the time, 'Republicans have the desperate aura of an endangered species...the electorate is getting less white, less rural, less Christian—in short, less demographically Republican.'" with no additional coverage.

No depth whatsover in any of these. So I really fail to see how this is sigcov. Reywas92^Talk 14:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The breadth of coverage of the directly related sources which -- per our standards -- do "not need to be the main topic of the source material", taken in combination with those sources that have mere fleeting mentions, collectively define WP:ARTN. But I appreciate we may have to agree to disagree. Best - 18:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't expect this magazine article to necessarily be the main topic of the sources, but I do expect more than a single sentence in any one of them. The parties' histories or 2008 United States presidential election#Analysis can reflect the expectations of the time that existed beyond this magazine cover, but the cover itself doesn't need an article. Reywas92^Talk 22:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I think the "single-sentence" mentions merely reinforce the longer, more focused references and the article may be unnecessarily long and over-referenced. Again, though, I'm happy to agree to disagree. Chetsford (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reywas92's analysis of the sources identified by Chetsford is correct. As with the other sources that refer to the cover, these are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of the magazine cover, not WP:SIGCOV. This whole article is full of WP:SYNTH, assembling a narrative that somehow this WP:MILL magazine cover influenced U.S. politics. Take the sentence In 2010, the year after "Endangered Species" was published, the Democratic Party began one of its least successful periods in its modern history. The source for this statement doesn't mention the cover or article at all, so tying it to the claim about Democratic party success is SYNTH. The "Reactions" section is also basically a whole paragraph of SYNTH. Finally, it's unclear whether this page is about the cover or the article (those are distinct things), and the page appears to amass a range of trivial mentions of either the cover or the magazine to synthesize the impression of in-depth coverage that doesn't exist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a notable magazine cover. It's never won any awards for photography (to be honest, it looks like it was created in Photoshop in under five minutes), without any sort of artistic planning or other notable artistic effort. Using articles from 2024 that briefly (if at all) mention a 15 year old magazine cover is not notable. Sources are as discussed. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Using articles from 2024 " Just in point of clarification, the sources that substantively discuss it are from 2010 (2) and 2017 (2). That said, I'm not sure what policy argument is being invoked here to assert that sources from a specific year render an article non-notable. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more recent articles than articles from the period, and the new ones don't mention this article. Some version of SYNTH at play. Oaktree b (talk) 02:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Chetsford (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still confused where "substantively discuss it" comes from, can you please quote the part any source that's more than one sentence? Reywas92^Talk 02:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are discussed above, please review there if you have further questions. Oaktree b (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, that was my analysis of the sources, and none are longer, focused, or substantive. Reywas92^Talk 18:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as an interesting essay but it is SYNTH as Dclemens1971 states, and as Oaktree b points out, the cover is not itself notable. In fact, very little of the WP article here is even marginally about the cover; it is mostly about Obama's election and presidency. Lamona (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. ✗plicit 12:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carson Vinson

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

I am struggling to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Most of the sources available contain routine coverage of an invite to a college all-star game, with a notable exception being this piece from Alabama News Center, which has maybe a half-dozen sentences of independent coverage of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Alabama, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG: The piece you linked (here) is a feature story (6,000+ characters) about Vinson. It's clearly SIGCOV. Do you disagree? This one also appears to be SIGCOV. It's pretty rare for offensive tackles to receives this level of coverage. Cbl62 (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While a closer count yields closer to 10 sentences of coverage of the subject (most is quotes), the site itself seems to be some sort of corporate newsletter for Alabama Power, directly describing themselves as "one of several ways [the company] communicates with and advertises to its customers". They also have a section titled allegations of media manipulation on their WP article, but regardless, I do believe that this questionable source + six sentences of coverage of the subject in the AL.com article – which ends with an link to buy tickets to the game and a note that the site "may receive compensation" if you purchase a product through links on their site – at least warrants a discussion. Biographies, but BLPs especially, require strong sourcing. JTtheOG (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the two articles cited in the article, I would say (i) the depth is there in both cases to consitute WP:SIGCOV, (ii) such depth is rare for offensive linemen (especially at non-majors), (iii) AL.com (Alabama's largest media outlet) doesn't fail WP:INDY just because the article provides a link allowing readers to purchase tickets to the Senior Bowl, an annual collegiate all-star game that is played in Mobile, and (iv) I don't see any COI in the piece from Alabama News Center, since there is no connection (unless I'm missing it) between Vinson and the utility company that funds the outlet. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, a corporate newsletter with no published editorial policy or staff page from an energy company with a shady recent history of media manipulation doesn't strike me as a reliable source to report on college football, especially as the main piece of SIGCOV on a BLP. JTtheOG (talk) 07:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can call it "a corporate newsletter". It is a news website owned by a public utility company. While unusual, this is unfortunately an era in which corporate/billionaire ownership of media (including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc.) has become increasingly common. I don't believe that such ownership taints all of a media outlet's coverage. Clearly, any coverage of the owner's other business interests would involve a conflict of interest and thus be non-independent. However, as stated above, there's no conflict here with reportage on a local college athlete. Even if that were a problem, there's coverage in multiple other media outlets, including those set forth below. Cbl62 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, it’s a matter of reliability not COI. A company’s media wing is not the same thing as a newspaper of record owned by a billionaire. JTtheOG (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. See the points raised above. Also, his notability is supported by being the first player from an HBCU ever selected for the honor of playing in the Senior Bowl. In addition to the two SIGCOV sources already cited in the article, there are others. E.g., (3) this from SI.com focusing of Vinson being the first HBCU player selected to play in the Senior Bowl (quite a historic honor), (4) a six-minute piece from Fox 54 (here) focusing on the historic nature of Vinson's selection for the Senior Bowl, (5) this piece from WHNT Huntsville, and to a lesser extent (6) this from SI.com rating him one of the top offensive tackles in FCS and (7) this rating him as one of the top three HBCU football players. All said, I think it's enough to pass our GNG standard. Cbl62 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He's not actually the first HBCU player ever selected to the Senior Bowl. There have probably been a lot. Those sources just mean he's the first one (and possibly only one) this year. This additional source about Vinson says "Pro Football Hall of Famer John Stallworth, an Alabama A&M legend and 1974 Senior Bowl alum, was on hand to deliver the invitation." Stallworth was a HBCU Senior Bowl selection in 1974. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiO. That's helpful and makes Vinson's selection less impressive. I'd probably lean more toward Draftify or a weak keep in that case. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, per Cbl62. Probably has enough coverage, especially since it's rare for low-level FCS offensive tackles to receive much coverage at all. (Also, WikiOriginal-9 is correct regarding HBCU players at the Senior Bowl. He's the only one this year, not ever, although it looks like there's only been one other across the 2022-25 Bowls per AL.com, so still pretty rare.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify makes sense as well per Cbl62 – given that he was selected to the Senior Bowl, there's a decent chance he could be chosen in the upcoming 2025 NFL draft (in the Alabama News Center article, his coach said that "He's had every NFL team come and look at him this year – He's gonna get drafted in this year's draft".) BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing here isn't enough to keep this as a stand-alone article. I will admit I'm not entirely sure how to assess the notability of the article written by the power company's newsletter, but even then the other articles are transactional. I have no problem with draftifying this if other sources are found. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There appears to be a lack of WP:SIGCOV from reliable, secondary sources discussing the subject in depth to meet the WP:GNG. The newsletter doesn't appear to be independent and I don't see anything better. Let'srun (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2024 (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.

Julian Humphrey

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

Draftify as I am struggling to find much of any in-depth coverage of the subject, failing WP:GNG. Despite the WP:REFBOMB, everything that comes up is basic coverage of either his college commitment (or de-commitment) or his transfer to another school, with some quotes and stats sprinkled in. This is what we would call "routine transactional announcements" in other sports. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (country), and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There appears be coverage with real depth. E.g., (1) part one/part two, (2) part one/part two, and (3) this. Cbl62 (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I was pinged by the article creator, but I was already planning on participating). Cbl62's coverage looks sufficient. Also, I don't buy the "routine" argument – if someone receives SIGCOV for e.g. transferring, then that's SIGCOV in accordance with GNG, especially if it's national-level coverage like we have here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I personally don't think he should be notable enough for Wikipedia - the sources presented are all essentially "he transferred, then he didn't" and are arguably primary, and I only see one source which goes into how he played as opposed to where he signed and it's local, but the sources above go into enough detail about him that it's hard to argue they don't pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the coverage shown by Cbl62 and the one already in the article. Please note that the locality of the sources have no relevance to the subjects notability. Alvaldi (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage from Cbl62 appears to be sufficient enough to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Possibly Moved: We're starting to see many many articles likes this.. Where many are half finished of players transferring around.. After seeing a few pages and this one included, it reminded me of the New York Yankees minor league players page. My suggestion is make a new page list for these players similar to the Yankee example.Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to thank you guys for motivating me in creating a page for players..

My sandbox is also an example, of what we should possibly do. In these instances. User:Yeahimaboss413/sandbox67

Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 14:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Island City, Indiana

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

It's rare for an "X City" place to fail verification, and I'd like to think there is some information out here that would at least clarify matters here. So far, I've found nothing that wasn't a reference to the mining enterprise. Judging from the oldest topos I've seen, the mine was southeast of the town "site", for they show a strip mine there. Everything else says "rail point", so the most likely history is that they wanted a town there, but it failed. But I cannot prove this nor any other theory. Mangoe (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can provide references to several reliable sources that devote significant coverage to Island City, Indiana. Cullen328 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This newspaper article refers to "the Island City community, south of Linton". This article refers to an incident in which Blacks were forcibly driven out of "Island City, the mining camp a mile south of Linton". I'm not convinced there's enough material there for a full article, but I think preserving it as a redirect to, say, Stocktown Township would be appropriate. Choess (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viola Group

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. This article was AFD before but I don't really agree with the provided sources by the now-blocked user. They don't seem to pass WP:SIRS in my view regarding the subject itself. Another user has tagged this article for multiple issues including notabilit. It also doesn't help this article is created by a suspected paid editor who has 5 out of 6 articles deleted with this being the last one remaining.

I am submitting this article to look at this again given that NCORP requirements are more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Israel. Imcdc Contact 05:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this reads as an advertisement and not an encyclopedic entry. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024

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

I'm also nominated this article because This event does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nor does it have a reliable sources to verify. Also the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: WP:PEMBUATKONTEN). Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 04:38, 21 December 2024 (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/2024 December 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Entertainment, Events, Internet, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The page was incorrectly moved to a userpage. I moved it back, please do not unilaterally draftify (or userfy) it again unless that becomes the outcome of this AFD. Geschichte (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PAAMCO

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Had a lot of COI and promotional edits. A quick search focuses only on the subject being part of a merger with another entity so the current subject in article no longer operates under this name. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find company profiles, short articles in business news about executive comings and goings, SEC filings ... in short, nothing independent/nothing significant. It does indeed fail WP:NCORP. Lamona (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Pratt

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Iowa. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Please ping me if SIGCOV is found. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per usual, nom fails to address independent coverage of the subject, who meets WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC at the very least. A quick search yields more than decent coverage in The Pueblo Chieftain and SkateToday, for starters. JTtheOG (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aissa Bouaraguia

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Netta Schreiber

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Israel. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Believe she does satisfy notability. Actually not sure what the issue is about the article. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Pervushkina

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svitlana Pylypenko

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellie Kawamura

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and California. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Pedrazzini

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Mike (disambiguation)

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

There is only one topic with the name "Magic Mike." Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) was deleted for similar reasons. GilaMonster536 (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see WP:SETINDEX -Mushy Yank. 08:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two partial matches and one legit entry (plus DJ Magic Mike, who is covered by the hatnote in the primary topic). The partial matches are also covered by Magic Mike#Sequels. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This disambiguation page is not required. The two WP:PTMs are mentioned at the primary topic article, which has a hatnote to the only other use DJ Magic Mike. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Clarityfiend's reasoning is pretty on point to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neotia University

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

This will need to satisfy either WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable, both of which it fails to do. Although this article cites no usable sources, the sources I found while performing a WP:BEFORE did not have WP:SIGCOV, most of them were only mentioning it's rankings or the events conducted at the university. [21][22][23][24], note that none of these sources identify an individual reporter and have generic bylines as author information, so they all fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp: Please point out the relevant guideline/consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has consistently been the result of AfDs. Hence consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only notability guideline pertaining to universities is at WP:NSCHOOL which states :- All universities, ..... that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline. (Emphasis mine). There's an apparent contradiction here between what you are saying and the guideline, additionally can you also demonstrate how what you are saying is the consensus on notability of universities established by statue.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the somewhat related SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC,[25] the RFC close found that
Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community.
Rightly so. The page is notable if it meets the appropriate notability guidelines and policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the RfC only applied to secondary schools and not universities and shouldn't be cited to support any other deletion arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my words somewhat related. Circular arguments do not stop being circular when the students at the relevant institution are a couple of years older. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sourcing that I can find that this meets NORG, which would be required for a private university. I would happily move to redirect if someone can find an appropriate target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence so far establishing notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jebamani Janata Party

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

Non notable political party. The leader of this party gained some notoriety for filing a false affidavit. Has never won an election (never even come close), is not a recognised party with a permanent symbol and therefore should not remain. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, India, and Tamil Nadu. Jupitus Smart 02:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jupitus Smart: Yeah, I guess you might be right... I'm not from India, so I'm not really familiar with India's political system, but I'm trying to do my best to figure things out. (e.g. I have now realized that I should probably link "unrecognized" to Politics of India § Registered Unrecognized Political Party (RUPP)) I have now done some mostly-thorough searching through various public and licensed resources that I have access to, and here are the statistics of what I found (though keep in mind that my criteria for what to list and what to merge vs keep separate have been a bit inconsistent):

83 articles/books/documents total
- 12 were about Nellai R. Jebamani in the Janata Party
- 25 were just lists of election candidates or results or similar
- 37 were just about Mohanraj, the party leader
- 9 actually have information about the party beyond Mohanraj and election participation and performance:
  1. A Hindi?-English bilingual government document: मजूमदार, ए. के. (July 12, 2002). "भारत निर्वाचन आयो, अधिसूचना, आ.अ. 82( अ )". भारत को राजपत्र. असाधारण : भाग II—खण्ड ३—उप-खण्ड (iii) (in Hindi). No. 61. नई दिल्ली. रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल०-33004/99 : सं. 56/2002( iv )/न्यायिक-III. निर्वाचन प्रतीक ( आरक्षण और आबंटन ) आदेश, 1968 के पैरा 17 के उप पैरा ( 2 ) के अनुसरण में, भारत निर्वाचन आयोग समय-समय पर यथा संशोधित तारीख 10 जनवरी, 2002 की अपनी अधिसूचना संख्या 56/2002/न्यायिक-III, में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन और करता है अर्थात् :— [...] II. उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न सारणी III ( रजिस्ट्रीकृत अमान्यता प्राप्त दलों ) में— (1) क्रम सं. 584 पर विधमान प्रविष्टियों के पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों स्तम्भ 1, 2 और 3 के नीचे क्रमश: रखी जाएं :— [...] 592.; जेबामणि जनता; नं. 33, सैंकड़ स्ट्रीट, पूर्व अबिरामपुरम, माइलापोर, चेन्नई-600004 तमिलनाडु । = MAJUMDAR, A. K (July 12, 2002). "ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, NOTIFICATION, O.N. 82(E)". The Gazette of India. EXTRAORDINARY : PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii). No. 61. New Delhi. REGD. NO. D. L -33004/99 : No. 56/2002(iv)/Jud. III. In pursuance of sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 17 of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, the Election Commission ot India hereby makes the following further amendments to its Notification No. 56/2002/Jud-III, dated 10th January, 2002, as amended from time to time, namely :— [...] II. In Table III (Registered unrecognised parties), appended to the said Notification— (i) After the existing entries at serial number 584, the following entries shall be inserted under columns 1, 2 and 3 respectively column . [...] 592.; Jebamani Janata; No. 33, Second Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600004. (Tamil Nadu). @ Internet Archive in.gazette.central.e.2002-07-12.114616, in.gazette.e.2002.241.
  2. That announcement is repeated in the following English-language document: MAJUMDAR, A. K. (1 August 2002). Pal, R. P. (ed.). "GOVERNMENT OF GOA, Department of Elections, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer; from ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA: Notification, No. 56/2002/Jud.III". OFFICIAL GAZETTE, GOVERNMENT OF GOA. SERIES I. No. 18. pp. 375–376. Internet Archive in.goa.egaz.0203-18.SI.
    - These indicate that the party's name in Devanagari script is "जेबामणि जनता". I didn't find anything obviously useful from a quick Google search, but I don't speak/read Hindi (I've been relying on Google Translate, OCR, and visual clues), and I'm not sure what search engines might work best for Indian webpages in Hindi.
    - Internet Archive has 107 results for "Jebamani Janata"; I haven't bothered to go through all of them yet, just the couple of oldest ones, and then skimmed through and saw that they all looked kinda similar.
  3. Political Parties and Election Symbols. New Delhi: Publication Division, Election Commission of India. 2004. p. 47. HathiTrust mdp.39015061276674. Google Books vI-KAAAAMAAJ.
    - I don't seem to have access to this, but I did find another version online, and on p. 24, 47 it says: "TABLE — III: REGISTERED UNRECOGNISED PARTIES [...] S.No.: 323.; Name of the Registered Unrecognised Political Party: Jebamani Janata; Headquarters Address: No. 33, Second Street, East Abiramapuram, Mylapore, Chennai-600004, (Tamil Nadu)"
  4. Ahuja, M. L. (2005). "Appendices". General Elections in India: Electoral Politics, Electoral Reforms, and Political Parties. p. 429. Google Books vI-KAAAAMAAJ. HathiTrust inu.30000101132953. Abbreviation: JJ; Party: Jebamani Janata
  5. "'Richest' in fray faked it". New Indian Express. 11 May 2009. Factiva NIEXPR0020090512e55b00053. Mohanraj is the son of late freedom fighter and a close associate of late leader K Kamaraj, R Jebamani. Mohanraj is heading the Jebamani Janata, a registered, but non-recognised political party.
  6. Mohan, Gopu (6 October 2011). "'Spare 3 on death row': officer who probed Rajiv case is no longer angry". national. Indian Express. Factiva AIWINE0020111006e7a60000z. Gale A268839491. NewsBank 8C87EBB2DB104CEAB04405DA52DA75FE / 2F14960F1FB68CD030. Nexis Uni 53YK-7GF1-JB35-147X-00000-00. PressReader 281805690679459. ProQuest 896368566. He floated the Jebamani Janata Party, named after his father, and has contested 15 elections to Parliament, the Assembly and the local body.
  7. "Health plagues Gandhian fasting against booze". New Indian Express. Express News Servcie. 25–26 February 2013. Factiva NIEXPR0020130228e92p0008k. Gale A320322825. Nexis Uni 57V4-SJT1-F12F-F3FK-00000-00. ProQuest 1312350565. The health condition of the 57-year-old Gandhian from Salem, Sasi Perumal, who had been on fast for the past 27 days demanding total prohibition in the State, began deteriorating on Monday. [...] Social service organisations working towards prohibition in the State — [...] and Jebamani Janata Party — expressed their solidarity with the Gandhian.
  8. "TN candidate declares Rs 1.76 lakh cr cash, Rs 4 lakh cr loan". India. Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) English. 4 April 2019. Factiva HNIANS0020190404ef44003ju. Gale A581195420. The Tribune (India) 753246. ProQuest 2202720901. Candidate for the by-election to the Perambur assembly seat in Tamil Nadu, J. Mohanraj of the Jebamani Janata party, has declared loan dues to the World Bank of Rs 4 lakh crore and cash in hand of Rs 1. 76 lakh crore. Interestingly, the Election Commission has accepted Mohanraj's affidavit and has allotted him the 'Green Chilli' symbol. [...] Sixty seven-year old, Mohanraj is the son of late Nellai R. Jebamani who was elected to the Tamil Nadu assembly from the Sattankulam constituency in 1977 as a Janata Party candidate. Mohanraj also said the upcoming one will be his 13th election contest, and that he has unsuccessfully contested the Lok Sabha and Tamil Nadu assembly elections earlier.
  9. Subramanian, Lakshmi (April 4, 2019). "Tamil Nadu's "richest" candidate dares EC to prove him wrong". The Week. Meet Mohanraj Jebamani, a retired police inspector and son of former MLA and freedom fighter Jebamani. [...] Mohanraj's father Jebamani was an MLA from the Sathankulam constituency in 1976, the election held immediately after the emergency was lifted. His father Jebamani was one of the detainees under the MISA during the emergency and was part of Morarji Desai's Janata party then. "I got voluntary retirement from the police service, because of corruption." He has named his party as Jebamani Janata Party after his father.

The sources about Nellai R. Jebamani are not directly relevant. The lists and election results are routine coverage, if that doctrine applies to this kind of article. The sources about Mohanraj clearly do not have significant coverage of the party if their only mention is something like '[...] Mohanraj of the Jebamani Janata Party [...]'. These last nine sources have some coverage of the party, but I'm not sure if it rises to the level of being Significant Coverage... #1-4 are still routine coverage, and #5-9 have only very small amounts of information about the party. However, there are still some unexplored avenues for finding sources: in particular, I have not exhausted the Google Search or Internet Archive results, and I have not really tried searching in Devanagari script, just Latin script...

However, given how much I found about Mohanraj / Mohan Raj, do you think would might be notable enough? If so, I might try to pivot this article into an article about him? The sources I've found are mostly about various litigation he's filed, the false affidavits you mentioned, and a little bit of biographical information. The article I cited from The Week gives the impression of being a short biography of him.

Solomon Ucko (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Global

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources on subject itself to establish notability. Was previously tagged for notability and other issues for years. Article created by WP:SPA

Disputed PROD. Seems there are WP:COI users coming out all of a sudden when this page hadn't been edited since March this year. Imcdc Contact 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Computing, Software, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 02:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be wholly promotional CR (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Iceland datacenter is interesting, although I didn't find any substantial & independent sources for that. (There's one from Intel but it is a "customer spotlight" clearly written by Verne.) I have no idea if there could be Icelandic sources. I didn't find any sources about the company beyond the usual company profiles. The blatant COI is rather disturbing, coupled with their inability to take a hint. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driftwood fort

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

Not notable. Half the article is a list of individual forts with no lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I always thought it was non-notable. Now that Panamitsu has come to that view too, I am happy to support deletion. Nurg (talk) 07:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This article is a mess (why is it only composed of references to driftwood forts in the news?) but WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. There's significant coverage of the subject in books like James Herman's Driftwood Forts of the Oregon Coast and Nancy Blakey's By the Shore (pp. 199-200). They are also key elements in fiction, such as this Allyson Gulliver story and the movie Far from Home (see here). Failing a consensus to keep this as a standalone article, any encyclopedic content should be merged to Driftwood#Forts. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breakers (restaurant)

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

Not notable. All sources are for routine coverage (eg closure of individual restaurants) but are not about the business as a whole. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this clearly is not notable. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 01:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find SIGCOV, although the name doesn't help admittedly. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fujitsu Tower

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

Trivial coverage in two of the source (only mention Fujitsu Tower in one sentence). The source that is used the most is routine coverage of its sale. And that source is oneroof which isn't a particularly good source. I can not find any good sources online. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The building was originally called the Caltex Tower, so there may be more sources using that name, especially in regards to the design, construction and early history of the building. I'll try and look into this after Christmas when I have more time. Paora (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the main source provided is just an advertisement for the real estate listing. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fleming Retirement Village

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

Not notable as the media coverage is only of the opening and does not show any lasting significance. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see any sigcov Traumnovelle (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minecraft characters

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

This is a fork of content on the main Minecraft article that doesn't warrant its own article. The bulk of this article is a Fandom-style listing of all of the mobs in Minecraft - the kind of thing that Wikipedia avoids being (unless it has good reason). It's a list of game mechanics that isn't (and can't be) written in an encyclopedic way. This list isn't discussed together in secondary, reliable sources. There are few notable topics here - namely Steve, Creeper, and Herobrine, which already have their own articles. But the rest just lists parts of the game.

Anyway, I argue this article does not warrant a Wikipedia article because it fails the notability of lists. Its content is adequately covered in the main Minecraft article. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, Entertainment, Popular culture, and Lists. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As the nominator says, these mobs are not really distinct "characters" and are more or less gameplay elements with little notability attached to their names. This list isn't really warranted, and is better off removed for the time being. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isn't really a "list of characters" so much as a list of enemies, i.e. gamecrufty. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Steve and Alex are already mentioned in the main Minecraft article (with the former also having a full, dedicated article) and Herobrine, while a notable hoax, is technically not actually a character in Minecraft (and also has a separate, dedicated article as well). The remainder of this is not a list of characters, but a listing of enemy mobs in the game that borders on being a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for many reasons: GAMEGUIDE, all in-universe, and an indiscriminate list. Definitely not worthy of a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without real world context, this does not feels closer to a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. These don't have significant coverage, and are closer to a list of enemies, as per WP:GAMEGUIDE. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as everyone as said it mostly a list of enemies with no notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above, and also because "Minecraft character" is a SYNTH/OR concept (synthesis of "mobs" and "skins"). Janhrach (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2030 in sports

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

Declined PROD. Page was created too soon. List is completely unsourced and contains only one single entry. Almost eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A3. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not even a complete list and way too soon. I agree this could be speedy deleted. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ – I added events from Category:2030 in sports, which brought it up to eight entries. At the very least it's definitely not eligible for speedy deletion anymore. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, delete – there's no need for this list when the category exists. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Lorstaking (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Procyon117 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely WP:TOOSOON. This page won't have use for at least another couple of years. Beachweak (talk) 12:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should stamp out the perceived need to create articles more than half a decade ahead of its time. Wikipedia does not hold a contest for fastest creation of articles. More articles on future or even current events need to develop in draft space first, that what is the case today. Geschichte (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and draft: Articles will be needed in the future, it can be moved to draft space where it can develop until a point it is suitable for the main space. Mn1548 (talk) 09:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mn1548: Drafts can only be stored for up to six months, according to WP:DRAFT, so sending this to draft space makes absolutely no sense. Considering that there isn't any content worth preserving, and the page can be easily recreated in the future. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point. On second thoughts, my usual objections to deleteing articles that will be notable in the future regarding keeping the article as a source library doesn't apply in this case as such sources will be more available closer to the time for this article. A preference for draft is still here, but no objection to deletion. Mn1548 (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Grahaml35 (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]