Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 11	January 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Public image of Taylor Swift. I don't see a reason to delete before merging, as some people suggest - we would need to preserve history in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion of Taylor Swift

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

Taking this to AFD after a PROD was contested. Regardless of how it got split off from a public image article, what we have now is heavily bloated with excessive details and fancruft, even more so than what I saw a few months ago. The amount shown within "Fashion and aesthetic" here following a split was plenty and frankly didn't require another page for extended details. We're not supposed to be Swift-o-pedia by making excessive pages on simply anything the press writes pertaining to Taylor per WP:NOTADIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some pieces are more important than others. To be blunt, the page comes off as a WP:POVFORK dedicated to praising her looks. By no means does it help when clothing is called "classic" outside of quotes or how most (if not all) of the commentary under "Reception" seems to lean towards positive remarks when not just giving matter-of-fact or neutral descriptions. Elaborating on some of the negative criticisms might make this read somewhat less like a puff piece, but either way that wouldn't be enough to salvage the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Fashion. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was hoping to formulate a decisive vote here, but will have to declare myself undecided on the notability of the topic. Swiftyism is severely out of hand and it downright gives me the creeps -- she's barely seen as a human being anymore -- and this particular article continues the madness with cringeworthy fancruft and other types of obsession for which the obsessed should seek psychiatric help. But on the other hand, dozens of reliable media sources have analyzed her fashion style as a cultural phenomenon of public interest, so I cannot conclude that this article topic violates WP policy. Regardless, there should be a community effort to pare it down into something more factual that does not reflect the sensibilities of stalkers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree that many obsessive fans have gotten "severely out of hand" with their overzealous actions. It seems to have made certain journalists who already like Taylor to go over the top with minutiae in their coverage, so one can't always tell how much of that is worth implementing in some capacity. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swift's fashion, by the 2024 (which in the 18th year of her career), has received more than enough coverage and notability to warrant a separate article. The cited sources are all listed reliable sources, including major music and fashion publications. ℛonherry☘ 06:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of publications used isn't the problem here; it instead is neutrality and undue weight. The sheer number of existing sources also doesn't compensate for how the article is loaded with way too many positive remarks. This appears to have been cherry-picked so little to none of comments are even remotely negative. Either way, it's not like she has always gotten unanimous praise for fashion. The article overall reads like something from a fan site or a public relations team. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contributing at the Bands/Musicians AfD page for a long time, and several of these peripheral Taylor Swift articles have come up over the past few years. I believe most survived because WP policy allows articles that are supported by multiple reliable sources, and the deletion discussions often became lamentations about the obsessive fan prose in those articles, just like here. That is a matter of editing and cleanup, and perhaps the community of editors behind this article could be convinced at the talk page to lighten up on the stalking. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There's a neutral share of criticism of Swift's fashion within the article, claiming her dressing sense is "normal" and underwhelming for a popstar, which is also reflected in the lead. Neutrality isn't forcing a 50/50 split of opinions when that isn't the case in the sources. Her fashion has been mostly praised in the media, and some of her "normal" clothes have been criticized, which has been proportionately represented in the prose; it's a 70/30. I cannot agree with your claims that this article is "loaded" with praise, which is honestly an exaggeration and is no grounds for deletion. There is always room for improvement and copyediting in any given article, that I'll agree. The prime criterion for the creation of an article on Wikipedia is the notability of its subject, and this subject has received more than enough notability to have an article. Any other concerns only make way for copyediting, not deletion. ℛonherry☘ 00:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The body says nothing about "underwhelming" or anything synonymous to that, so I'm not sure where this came from, and nevertheless the lead isn't supposed to introduce new things that get no subsequent mentions within an article. I wasn't suggesting a split had to necessarily be 50/50, just that the page looked overly skewed towards positive. This particularly goes for the "Reception" section where the parts sounding generally negative got quickly followed by journalists trying to counter them. It comes off as an attempt to say "these people who nitpick or don't like her choices are wrong". By no means was I exaggerating when I said "loaded", and I'm not going to sugarcoat how the page contains fancruft. When a page seemingly tries to convey a message of "Taylor looks great and don't listen to the haters of her clothing choices", that is unduly positive weight. That's why I brought up WP:POVFORK earlier, and it mentions The creator of the new article may be sincerely convinced that there is so much information about a certain aspect of a subject that it justifies spinning off a separate article. Any subarticle that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. I'm not convinced it gives enough weight to the latter, even if overall less common than the former. Regardless, it's overkill to have as much detail as the page currently goes into. I would expect that much positive, negative, or neutral commentary to be found in a fashion publication or a gossip rag instead of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, let's not ignore the WP:NOTADIARY policy, which says not every detail reported on someone's life is worth including. It's an oversimplification to assume everything that gets into the news is worth making an article for. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Public image of Taylor Swift, per above WP:NOTADIARY and WP:FANCRUFT policies stated above. Swift's fashion sense is notable that there is a range of coverage from beauty sites, but I don't see anything here that can't be covered in the public image article. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, but not strongly opposed to a merge to Public image of Taylor Swift. I agree that the current article is bloated, but Taylor Swift's fashion sense and influence on fashion trends does seem to have received a lot of coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't strike me as that unreasonable to think that the impact of the world's biggest pop star on fashion would be a sufficiently notable phenomenon to merit an article. For instance (without intending this as an appeal to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), we have articles on Fashion of Madonna, Fashion of Audrey Hepburn and Fashion of Diana, Princess of Wales, so while I agree that there are WP:FANCRUFT issues here, I don't think the fashion of a very prominent celebrity is inherently FANCRUFT or that this is a topic uniquely of interest to swifties. I lean towards keeping and trying to fix the issues as part of normal editing, but would not be strongly opposed to a selective merge to Public image of Taylor Swift. MCE89 (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Public image of Taylor Swift. I see that is has received an honestly strange amount of coverage, but it is very bloated with fancruft and I don't really see why it needs to be a separate article from Public image of Taylor Swift. I agree that it is not uniquely of interest to swifties, but in my opinion it breaks WP:NOTGOSSIP. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (merge to Public image of Taylor Swift) -- seconding Sophisticatedevening, 100% hit the nail on the head. My biggest concern would be that Swift is so notable and so well-covered that virtually every aspect of her could technically be spun-off into a standalone article. I think having broad category-like articles are the best way of handling this while respecting notability. MWFwiki (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Taylor Swift per above arguments. Also, it's just an essay, not policy, but issues like this make me think of WP:FART. Tepkunset (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Pitka Blumenstein

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

A locally known healer, but not covered significantly by multiple sources. Of the sources in the article:

1. not specifically about the subject (archive link [1])

2. A significant source, a book including 8 pages about the subject - but this is the only WP:SIGCOV. This source is fairly hagiographic, as it happens, and so may not count as intellectually independent. It is mostly quotes of her saying things about life, the universe, and everything.

3. About the group she belonged to.

4. A brief mention (archive link [2])

Of the external links, the first is a short obit, the second is a short bio, the third and fourth are copied from the book source, and the last is just an association website. Wizmut (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The top authors of this article [3] have not been on WP for several years, but I can notify them if someone suggests I do. Wizmut (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Alaska. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdraw my nomination, for two reasons: 1. I should have looked harder for more sources. 2. Others have improved the content and sourcing of the article. Thank you to @DaffodilOcean @PamD @Nnev66 Wizmut (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in addition to the book mentioned above (with its eight pages on Blumenstein) and other articles/books about the International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers, I find multiple articles that cover her work as a basket maker. This, combined with her presence in the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame combine to make her a notable figure. I have added these articles to the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame confers notability and the book chapter supports it too. (I've updated the dead link to the Hall of Fame). PamD 11:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the External Links. PamD 11:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And have added an oral history interview with her. Definitely notable. PamD 11:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD and DaffodilOcean. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I noticed this nomination yesterday and thought after a quick glance at the article that Blumenstein was likely notable, but didn't have time right then to dig into it further. I was going to do so today, only to find that DaffodilOcean and PamD had beaten me to it. The additional sources that they've added demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Schazjmd (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is notable with WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources such as the Schaefer (2006) book and coverage in the following newspapers: Anchorage Daily News, Anchorage Times, Daily Sitka Sentinel, Tundra Times Nnev66 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent work rescuing the article. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Jordan at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Shooting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Adelbi

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD, we no longer grant Olympians automatic notability as per WP:NOLY. This person fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No obvious notability, more obvious lack thereof. Geschichte (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per WP:ATD, to Jordan at the 1984 Summer Olympics#Shooting; not an implausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 12:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ingratis. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Elliot Stuntz

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

I could find no secondary source about this person. One book by Margaret McKenny and Stuntz, The New Savory Wild Mushroom, does have some reviews, but I'm not convinced that's enough to make him notable. Badbluebus (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Biology, United States of America, and Ohio. Badbluebus (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an 8 page biography already cited in the article: Ammirati, Joe F.; Libonati-Barnes, Susan (1986). "Daniel Elliot Stuntz, 1909-1983". Mycologia. 78 (4): 515–521. ISSN 0027-5514.. Another one is Ammirati, J. F. (1983). "Daniel Elliot Stuntz". Taxon. 32 (3): 533–533. ISSN 0040-0262.. He is the coauthor of The Savory Wild Mushroom, which was widely reviewed (e.g. [4], [5]). Jfire (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the 1983 source you showed is an obituary, which to me carries less weight when establishing notability. I'm more inclined to believe that although the book he co-authored could be notable, Stuntz himself is not. Badbluebus (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. To me this idea that obituaries carry less weight is making things up that are not actually in our guidelines. If we have a rule that what we need for an article is in-depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, then what we have is exactly that. If you think GNG should be changed to mean something different, then an individual AfD is not the place for that. The bigger issue, though, is that these two obituaries are not independent of each other, because they share an author. That means we do not have multiple independent sources counting towards GNG notability. One coauthored book with two published reviews [6] [7] counts towards WP:AUTHOR but by itself that would again fall short of the mark. I am on the weak keep side of the fence rather than weak delete, though, because I think the book reviews are also in-depth coverage (of Stuntz's works rather than his life story, but still coverage that counts), so putting them together with the obituaries gives us enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries, especially substantial ones, in main journals in a field are clear evidence of having been notable in that field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical timeline of the Big Bang

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

Deprod rationale claimed that notability was not refuted, but that is not the issue in the article. However, the other issues have not been addressed. They did not explain why we need a graphical version of the timeline in Chronology of the universe and Timeline of the early universe. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Astronomy, and Lists. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... not actually an article, and not justifiable under any notability criteria or WP:NOT? This could just be an image, in which case it might be helpful to more readers than the 50 or so who stumble across it every day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CFORK. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – same reasoning as with Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe. It's not an article, it's cruft written with messy markup. Something akin to Template:Nature timeline could be added to one of the remaining timeline articles. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. We are an encyclopedia, which should be published at an appropriate "Lexile" (or reading level) that a layperson can read and at least gather the gist. It's in a sense discrimination against our core readers - who need context. Our articles are geared towards a certain audience, and if you don't know your audience, get off the stage. If a teacher submitted this as a lesson plan, they would be evaluated as "not effective." There are many other STEM articles that even I don't understand, but they can be fixed with links, examples, and footnotes. This one, using a logarithmic scale as its centerpiece, can't be fixed into an actual encyclopedia article. Sorry to be so harsh, but I just spent hours the past few days fixing articles that were too high or too low a Lexile. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transcanal Endoscopic Mastoid Approach - A new access for the mastoid cholesteatoma.

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

This article about a book was written by the book's author, a clear conflict of interest. There are four references – two are the book itself, another is simply its ISBN, and the final (which I will delete) is a Wikipedia article. There are no independent references; the book was published about three months ago and it does not appear notable; I could not find it on an Internet my search other than on the Internet Archive. Furthermore, it is not a work of fiction and therefore does not have a "plot", which is the main section of the article. It may not meet criteria for speedy deletion, but should be deleted because of lack of notability in this category and the author's/creator's conflict of interest. (I cannot send a message directly to the creator of the article because there is no User Talk Page for that user.) Ira Leviton (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Medicine. Shellwood (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the article creator of this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage, so a clear failure of WP:NBOOK. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: "This article is about a newly published book on transcanal endoscopic mastoid surgery. " pretty much tells you this is PROMO. Zero sources I find, there are only a total of 4 Gsearch hits, the first one is this person's Gscholar profile. Oaktree b (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. I can't find any reviews of this book, no mention of it by anyone. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not even published by any academic publisher, and per this youtube video, self-published. No surprise it's not held in any libraries according to WorldCat, and no surprise there is no academic coverage of it. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Honestly, this might be the first I've seen to fail even WP:BKTS. It doesn't appear to be catalogued in the National Library of India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking around at my content. This article is about a research-based book that I wrote last year.

Please note that, despite being self-published, the book is edited and subject to open peer review. The book disclosed the reviewer's name along with the editor. Anyone can freely download the book from the source that I provide here. You can read this book if you work in medicine.

I know that self-promotion is bad. Nevertheless, promoting your worthy work for the benefit of people is a wonderful thing. I wrote this article about my book on Wikipedia so that interested ear surgeons will readily notice it.

If you find my explanation noteworthy, I request that you think before considering it for deletion. Shawkat26 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also kindly note that this book is catalogued in the Department of Archives and Libraries under the Ministry of Cultural Affairs, Bangladesh. If you want to check it, follow the link below and search the book by ISBN.

http://isbn.teletalk.com.bd/ Shawkat26 (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawkat26: Thanks for correcting me. I'm sorry for confusing which country the book originated in. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK per above. No secondary sources covering the book. Madeleine (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT - in 2025, everybody knows that we have never published original research, and that we are not a free place to publish your stuff. To argue otherwise is untenable. The creator might not know is that folks that use us with a conflict of interest are also creating a tax problem for us: as a charity, no part of our revenue can be used to profit anyone. If this were clearly notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources, an argument could be made that this is harmless, but I don't see any evidence therefore. It very much seems to be intentional spamming. We need to deter people from using us like this. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Research papers and research-based medical books are not same. The book is a compilation of many research works that must have authentic resources. My article is on a research-based book, not about a personal research paper. This book was edited and openly peer-reviewed by world renowned eminent ear surgeons. Reviewer's remarks were mentioned within the book. It is a published book, it has an ISBN, and it is cataloged in the Government's Department of Archive and Library.

It is considered a charity when an author freely offers his hard-labored book to others. I don't understand how a charity harms another charitable work.

After reading all the remarks, I understood my learned editors hardly gave a glance at the book. Although the book is free to download from the Internet Archive. I got their taste. If someone think I had bad intentions, it hurt me. Finally, I will request the admin to delete my article as soon as possible. This is my final decision and kindly ignore my previous request. Thank you all. Shawkat26 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy G7~~ Per author's request in preceding post, this should now be a :Db-author. Meters (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Per the boilerplate such an author's request during an AFD is just taken as agreement with the nomination rationale. Meters (talk) 08:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makrykano M1943

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

Draftified once already, then moved back to main space a few days ago by article creator. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no coverage of this weapon in reliable sources, just blogs, social media and fandom, and I can find no reliable means to verify that it ever existed. A merge to Chropei would be an adequate alternative to deletion, if we could find just one reliable source verifying that it's not a hoax. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Greece. Wikishovel (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I had to guess, I'd say the image originates from this ancient looking webpage from the Athens War Museum, as that's what the Youtube video credits. The image was presumably next to the text "Α-Τ Πυροβόλο 1943 (Μ. Βρετανία)", but the original may well have been lost to time. Quite how the YouTube content creator got the romanised name Makrykano, I wont speculate. My point is, that I don't think its a total hoax - but I'm not holding out for finding a great source either. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Johnson-Wheeler

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm struggling to see why this biography is notable. I understand that she is the daughter of a former British Prime Minister, but that isn't enough for a page in its own right. I can see that there are mentions of her in the media which she has participated in (i.e. she is not private person as such). However, I can't see why her biography is in itself notable. There is nothing about her life that I can see that would justify this page if it wasn't for the fact that her father was a British Prime Minister. Now that a few years have passed since her father was a Prime Minister, maybe it's clearer than when this article was previous nominated for deletion in 2021 as to why it isn't notable. It's interesting to note that on the page for Boris Johnson there is nothing about her apart from her name. Maybe a sentence about her in his personal life section might be sufficent rather than this whole article? Seaweed (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:NOTINHERETED. Someone could, if they wished, add a little bit of detail about each of BoJo's progency on the article about him - I can see that was suggested in the last AfD where it was pointed out that she has only had coverage in relation to her being his daughter, and nothing has changed since. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 17:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, Journalism, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: Because reliable sources mention her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wagdar (talk • contribs) 23:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Boris Johnson. I've searched and can't find any references that don't mention her primarily in the context of her father. I found another Evening Standard article, Will Boris Johnson be at his daughter's upcoming wedding?, but as the title suggests, the interest in her is because of her father, and in any case it looks like regurgitated information from Instagram. Tacyarg (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment full article in multiple publications about her [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 🄻 🄰 23:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand these references. No.s 1, 2 and 3 are really from one Tatler story. No 4 is Daily Mail, so not a reliable source and No.5 is something I suppose. Seaweed (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of sources brought to this discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ As the person who created this AfD I think maybe a little bit of information about her in the Boris Johnson article (more than just her name) would probably be sufficient. My concern is that I just don't think there needs to be an entire article about her. If she wasn't Boris Johnson's daughter, I'm sure there wouldn't be an article about her. With the greatest respect to her, her biography doesn't inherently meet Wikipedia's notability.

Seaweed (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, your nomination is your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

In fact, I've now added a very short sentence about Lara on Boris Johnson's article, copying two references from this article over there. Seaweed (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. The media would not be otherwise interested in her. LibStar (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTINHERETED and clearly non-notable life/achievements to date supported by citations to establish notability. Coldupnorth (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Cyclops (Marvel Comics). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punch dimension

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

Non-notable fictional concept. The references included outside of primary sources only consist of trivial coverage, largely from content farms. Searches are not turning up any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, making it a failure of the WP:GNG. I would have suggested redirecting it to Cyclops (Marvel Comics), except I don't think the name "Punch dimension" has ever actually been used in any official capacity in the comics, and is just a joke/meme name made up by fans. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. Rorshacma (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cyclops (Marvel Comics) as natural parent topic: Aside from the CBR, ScreenRant and BleedingCool articles used in the article, this Collider article also covers the Punch Dimension and asserts that it is "described in 1983’s Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe", i.e. not a joke/meme name made up by fans. Daranios (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The concept of Cyclops' power being powered by another dimension is not the made up joke/meme, its the name "Punch Dimension" to describe it that is. The actual quote from the 1983 Official Handbook on the topic is quoted in this article - note that the name "Punch dimension" does not appear in it. Merging is not necessary because the full description of Cyclops' powers, including the concept of it being generated by portals to a dimension of kinetic energy is already described in Cyclops (Marvel Comics)#Powers and abilities. And Redirection would not be appropriate as the name "Punch Dimension" is not the official name of that dimension in the comics themselves, and is not named as such in the Cyclops article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just to be sure I've understood correctly, said dimension is not named in 1983 Official Handbook anywhere outside the quoted passage? In that case we still have secondary sources like Collider, which I assume to be reliable, and ScreenRant, where consensus is "reliable for entertainment-related topics", which this is, which report on that fan-generated name. So we can and should briefly include this somewhere on Wikipedia based on those sources, and Cyclops still seems a fitting target for this bit of information to me. (And this, unexpectedly, makes it a non-plot, real-world related factum.) Daranios (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I fly too close to the sun with this article? Perhaps. But was it worth it? Yes, yes it was. Er, I mean, I don't really object, because the name is a meme, but the dimension is real. Alliterator85 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find much WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Might even be a WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:OR. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As everything is referenced and an additional source is listed above, WP:OR seems very unlikely. Daranios (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyclops. No real SIGCOV, but it is a concept attached to Cyclops already described at his article that is a valid target for this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cyclops. There is some out of universe content here that is not covered at Cyclops (e.g. the Punch Dimension appearing in canon in 2017, some more details on handbook changes). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2014–15 Premiership Rugby transfers. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2014–15 Aviva Premiership Academy promotions

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

All are covered in List of 2014–15 Premiership Rugby transfers. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and Lists. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to that page then. Not worth yet another relist. Geschichte (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student Health Action Coalition

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

Entirely based on primary sources. A search for sources yielded little in google news. Need wider coverage than local newpapers to meet WP:AUD and WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Medicine, and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Nikolaus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Oldenburg. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie von Schutzbar genannt Milchling

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

The significance of the article is not shown. Only genealogical information. An ordinary representative of the minor nobility. RobertVikman (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wife of a nobleman isn't quite notable Sourcing is strictly biographical, and I can't find anything to add. Oaktree b (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecct to Nikolaus, Hereditary Grand Duke of Oldenburg, though I'm not sure that he has good enough sourcing to be considered notable himself! PamD 11:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested and as has been commonly done. Bearian (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Ten business schools

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

Not a relevant sorting of business schools, as the Big Ten is a athletic conference, that doesn't organize primarily along athletic lines. Also see prev discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atlantic Coast Conference business schools for the ACC, which resulted in a consensus decision to delete. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Schools, Lists, and United States of America. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see sufficient sources to support this list article. (And thanks for nominating this, Epluribusunumyall - it was on my to-do list but you got to it first.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my vote on the ACC page – who a school's sports teams play is irrelevant to its business school (or medical or engineering school). Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a safe line of reasoning or one that aligns with Wikipedia policies and practices. On practical grounds, some sports conferences have described groups of institutions that are associated beyond athletics e.g., the original members of the Big Ten do have some strong academic and administrative ties although I am skeptical that those ties have remained strong and meaningful as the conference has grown beyond all reasonable size and geographic distribution. More importantly, we're not making judgments about how we think institutions should be organized but we're weighing the available evidence to see if reliable sources recognize this grouping and have written about it in substantive ways. ElKevbo (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  The academic ties they do have are not specific to the business schools, and there's no evidence this is a notable grouping – if either were the case I'd consider that but since it's not my comment stands; it's because of this irrelevance that we do not find stronger ties or sourcing. An intercollegiate case competition isn't enough for that. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not covered in any dept in reliable sources. One could think up all sorts of permutations for articles related to colleges and universities but need to have real backing in the sources. This one doesn't. Jjazz76 (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The basis for this list seems invalid. Orientls (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the discussion - might categories be a way to preserve some of this info? I'll admit I don't know if adding a category tag requires the same level of notability as a page. My suspicion is that it doesn't just in terms how I've seen categories tags be used, but I could be wrong. This might potentially be a compromise here between more inclusionist/deletionist perspectives here and in similar categories up for discussion. Jjazz76 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- @Jjazz76, I would say a category of the sort Category:Big Ten Conference Business Schools probably wouldn't be that helpful or relevant. The Category:Big Ten Conference schools is an existing container category for university-specific categories, which then usually container an article or category about their respective business schools. Given that the Big Ten Conference is primarily an athletic affiliation, having duplicative categories for academic sub-units seems redundant and not-super productive. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epluribusunumyall - Thanks for your response! Very much appreciated. Perhaps my suggestion is not all that helpful. :) Jjazz76 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW. Other than a one-time competition, this literally doesn't exist. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G5 of The Micronesian-Corsican Revolution UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Vayo

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another non-notable poker player with no WP:SIGCOV. Is it time to deal with these creations more centrally? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a move. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. This is not the place for it but I would support something like a topic ban for the creator. Saying their creations (and general edits) are sub-standard is being generous. This is wasting a lot of time and effort.--Atlan (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moped (band)

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

Non-notable rock band with there not being any sources I could find about them. GamerPro64 19:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and New Zealand. GamerPro64 19:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no news could be found in my search. Darkm777 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Apollo 18 (album). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Guitar (The Lion Sleeps Tonight)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2005 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article mostly cites primary sources, and the only secondary source is a review of the album. There are a few secondary RSes that mention the song (e.g. A.V. Club, but there is not enough for a standalone article. The content of the article can be merged into Apollo 18 (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apollo 18 (album). Capsule reviews in Billboard [13] and The Age [14] but not long enough to justify a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Khaled Bibo

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

Unable to find any in depth coverage of this player. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Egypt, and Switzerland. Mccapra (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

has made appearances as senior for one blue-linked club Mohamedmokhtar22 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is totally irrelevant per WP:NSPORTS2022. Anwegmann (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't participating in said discussion, but have to say the reason is because not all generations of football players receive significant coverage. This might be just a theory. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Fails WP:SIGCOV and thus WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Glennie

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

This article does not meet the notability criteria (or almost any other criteria) which would make it appropriate to include in Wikipedia. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had draftified it to Draft:Francis Glennie, hoping the page creator would take time and care to expand it and make it encyclopedic, but they clearly moved it back too soon. I tried. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - I don't see any serious allegations of notability nor evidence. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a genealogy website per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. There are other websites that are more appropriate for those purposes. Agree with Bearian's comment there is no real notability argument, aside from the headline of his obituary in the Western Daily Press which read "WELL-KNOWN IN BANKING CIRCLES", but there isn't any meaningful substantiation of this claim. (Thought of recommending a redirect to the article on his father John Glennie, but that article doesn't exactly inspire confidence in its current state either, though it reads less like a genealogy entry.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 10th Mountain Division#Italy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Mountaineers

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

This appears to be a promo article created by the filmmakers. Though the page includes a lot of references, most of them describe the underlying subject of the documentary. The remaining cites are mostly blurbs for minor film festivals/etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Military. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing found for this film, there is one about Everest with the same name [15], this is very PROMO. There seems to be a limited amount of coverage about the event depicted in the film, nothing for this film. Oaktree b (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: and all the media used in the article appears to be a copyvio. Another red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 10th_Mountain_Division#Italy: where it is covered; additional merge can be discussed on TP. (Note: if among "a lot of references", "most of them describe the underlying subject of the documentary", does it mean the rest of the sources focus on the film? If so, then not opposed to Keep) -Mushy Yank. 12:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chamaria Satra

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

Religious institution which does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Not to be confused with a village of the same name [16]. Cremastra (u — c) 17:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and Assam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dubuque area

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

This article seems to be mostly WP:OR as it does not seem common to lump Jo Daviess and Grant Counties into the Dubuque Area. Without those two, this article could essentially be superseded by Dubuque County, Iowa. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin. ✶Qux yz ✶ 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was initially going to suggest keep since most Metropolitan statistical areas have their own article, but those covering only a single county do not. The Dubuque MSA is only Dubuque County, so this article is just a vague wave about other cities nearby, which could be hypothetically made for any city. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any sources which specifically defines the Dubuque area on a consistent basis. SportingFlyer T·C 05:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the above comments. M4V3R1CK32 (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if consensus arrives towards deletion, I would prefer it to be made into a redirect to Dubuque County, Iowa since they have extreme overlap and in order to not break any links. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to Dubuque County, Iowa. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simons Architects

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

Flagged for significant work since 2022, and for COI and Paid contributions, the article is WP:ADMASQ for a small firm of architects which seems to be seeking to inherit notability from its clients, but fails WP:NCORP. WP:BOMBARD and WP:CITEKILL are almost invariably key indicators of puffery. This is no exception to that. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, Companies, and Maine. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The Refboming is horrible. The sources mention their projects or are mainly routine coverage. I could not find anything meeting WP:CORPDEPTH but happy to revisit should someone call out the sources that do.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firm appears to have a substantial body work for which they have received numerous awards. As Wikipedia:CONRED says If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.]] As suggested in Wikipedia:Using deletion as cleanup, this may be an opportunity to do that. Djflem (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to clean up the page should there be sources showing notability. Nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT. Are you able to supply a few to review? --CNMall41 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with CNMall41 on ref bombing. Drushrush (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and as written, WP:PROMO. SportingFlyer T·C 19:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Simons was created by the same SPA, I wonder if that is also a candidate for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Simons. Thank you for noticing it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 19:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander's invasion of Gangaridai

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

The article clearly fails WP:GNG, No mention of “Alexander's invasion of Gangaridai“ in the sources, Sources in the background & aftermath does not even mention the event rest are unreliable and don't mention a conflict either. Also this event is based on later legend which is not considered historical.

The Cambridge Ancient History: Macedon, 401-301 B. C. United States, Macmillan, 1927: It was a severe blow to Alexander. True, he could not have gone much farther in any case; half his army was on his communications with Taxila, and he was using Porus' troops for garrisons. But he thought there was not much farther to go; his desire still to advance with his reduced force proves that clearly enough. The intention of con- quering the Prasii, i.e. the great kingdom of Magadha on the Ganges, with which he is credited in some inferior sources, is a later legend; for he knew nothing of the Ganges, unless just the name, or of Magadha. [17] Koshuri Sultan (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“The reports say that Alexander was terrified by the mere prospect of having to face the Gangaridae and their elephants. The men themselves, seeing the numbers and strength of the elephants, were discouraged and compelled him to turn back.”

—Plutarch, Life of Alexander. Kirny Wirny (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PRIMARY, they are not useful for establishing notability. Nxcrypto Message 16:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:RS either, see WP:PRIMARY.
Also I already cited a source which says this event is totally based on later legends, Plutarch was born hundreds of years after Alexander's death. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails WP:V as the supposed conflict between Alexander and the Nandas has no basis in mainstream historical accounts. It violates WP:NOR by promoting speculative and fringe narratives not supported by reliable sources. The portrayal of Gangaridai as having repelled Alexander is contradicted by well-documented historical records, which state Alexander's retreat was due to his troops' exhaustion and refusal to advance, not any direct conflict with the Nandas. This article appears to be a WP:HOAX and fails WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 16:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, Bangladesh, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't happen, as the article itself explains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A mere hoax event. Garuda ^Talk! 14:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. Three sources don't even mention this subject, and the other source is Banglapedia, which is notoriously bad. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Gangaridai article as a section/subsection. Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Lombino

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

Fails Notability and has mostly just unreliable sources. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Fashion. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 14:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vast majority of the sources are YouTube videos and TikTok videos. 🄻 🄰 14:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Hušek

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Coverage is limited to joining an academy in England, never played professionally in the English game, and was limited to a low number of matches in his native Czech Republic before apparently finishing altogether in 2023. C 679 14:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. C 679 14:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 14:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FromCzech (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per above. Nothing here. Possible WP:TOOSOON, but at 24, I think we're past that. Anwegmann (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to say WP:TOOSOON until I realised how quickly the years have gone. This player either retired at 23 or has been unemployed for 18 months, both meaning the hype is not real. Soccerway said he played for five minutes in the Czech top flight, clearly not WP:GNG when hundreds of players do 18 times that every weekend. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikihito Arai

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

Restored after a previous PROD deletion. Still no evidence of a WP:GNG pass. In my own searches, I found Gekisaka and Ameba, but neither of these are sufficient. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Far from meeting SPORTCRIT. Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 16:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 14:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim_Leisy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jim Leisy

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

I believe Jim Leisy fails the WP:GNG criteria. Not enough independent secondary sourcing to prove notability.

The majority of the article is unsourced self-promotion. According to the one reference in the article the artist won a 'Caldera Gold Spot Award' but I can find no explanation of what that is or how notable it might be. He also has a work catalogued by the Smithsonian https://www.si.edu/object/solar-eclipse:nasm_A20170021000 that was gifted by the artist.

Additionally, there appears to be WP:COI from Leisy himself, creating the page in the first place, removing other editors' issue taggs without fixing issues, and multiple edits of the page under User:Jimleisy.

SallyRenee (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in the Getty ULAN [18], nor much of any mention for a photographer with this name. Nothing in the article shows notability. I don't find any book reviews. Oaktree b (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The COI editing doesn't help, but the subject has been deceased for a decade, I don't really think it matters much at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added two references. Leisy meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, in particular point 4D: the person´s work has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. The Smithsonian, the Portland Art Museum, among others.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works represented in the Smithsonian, Portland Art Museum, and 'National Air and Space Museum' were all gifted by the artist, apart from one at Portland that I could find that was intentionally purchased with funds provided by the Photography Council (Leisy was on the board of directors - so there's clear WP:COI there): http://www.portlandartmuseum.us/mwebcgi/mweb.exe?request=record;id=70706;type=101 SallyRenee (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The works may have been donated by the author but the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not make a distinction between purchased and donated works, so that is not a relevant argument. By the way, it is not at all easy to donate work to museums. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am leaning towards delete but not iVoting until I look deeper. I understand the nominator's thoughts about self-donated works in collections, however many institutions would still run a donated work through their acquisitions board; however in the case of the Portland Community College Collection, it's doubtful if they have one. The work in the Houston MFA seems to be donated by another person. The LensScratch article is a good source, however more like that are needed to meet NARTIST and GNG. A GoogleBook search found nothing. Netherzone (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After searching more, I think there is enough for him to meet notability standards. Here's what I found online: a comprehensive obituary: [19], article in LensScratch: [20], a comprehensive narrative about his work in the collection of the Smithsonian's Air & Space Museum [21], he's quoted here as an expert: [22]. These items along with the permanent collections (even tho several were donations by the artist), [23], however the work at the Portland Community College Collection was not donated by him [24], and has a decent narrative: [25]. The COI content or unsourced self-promo can be trimmed from the article; I think he meets notability, not in the strongest sense, but I do think he is notable. Netherzone (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Matloch

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Czech Republic. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also found no sources to support notability, and his results do not support notability either. FromCzech (talk) 09:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sources apparently exist. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)‎[reply]

Chimique

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

This is a drug that has very obscure notability. Note that "Chimique" in French is "Chemical" which obviously could refer to anything. As for the tobacco drug, scant sources account for it's existence. Plasticwonder (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Africa, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: several good sources found in two minutes with a Google search, including the two that are already cited in the article, as well as [26], [27], [28], etc.
BilletsMauves^€500 16:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Non english sources? Plasticwonder (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Withdrawn‎. Nomination withdrawn by nominator [29]. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lada Revolution

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

hoax, the car in the image doesn't exist in real life (only source is dead) Kecskemét 6000 (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Transportation, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Russian Wikipedia has a lot of sources cited but this isn't an area I know anything about. Is this definitely a hoax? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- in that case, expand the page based on the Russian Wikipedia - Kecskemét 6000 (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ky Dickens

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

I checked the first 26 sources for any sign of passing WP:NBASIC. Nothing. The sources are all either interviews, promotional press releases/churnalism, passing mentions (credits), or primary. Not convinced that this passes WP:NDIRECTOR either. Most of the Awards and recognition section are non-notable awards. Two of her films have articles, but notability isn't inherited. qcne (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. qcne (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it also before I did significant editing it was clear that it had been written by the subject herself 2A01:4B00:88BE:DF00:C79:3693:EC66:C21B (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Passes NDIRECTOR through Sole Survivor, Fish Out of Water and Zero Weeks (reviews here, here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck keep vote as WP:TNT applies. The subject is notable through NDIRECTOR but the article violates PROMO. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnoteworthy and largely written by the subject of the article without disclosure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kydickens Internetronic (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All edits by that account were immediately reverted (not that other edits to the article couldn't have been COI). Nardog (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reddit post detailing why it should be deleted.Kayn bred 02:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I’m also skeptical as to whether the two films mentioned that do have articles even deserve them too 2A01:4B00:88BE:DF00:D083:FA22:6B14:99A1 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary reason this article is of note to me is that since late 2024, Dickens' primary claim to fame (notoriety?) has been The Telepathy Tapes, a podcast that I do not think I, as an autistic person, can talk about objectively.
I agree that WP:TNT would be the least circuitous route to a quality Biography, if some iteration of the article was permitted(?) to remain in the database.
Also, I want to make sure I understand Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process § How does the deletion process work? correctly. The page was proposed for deletion on January 12, so if the vote to delete the page is unanimous (which of course it might not be), it could be deleted on the 19th. Is that correct? Thank you for your help!! Finalgirlfall (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Finalgirlfall, that's correct. On the 19th or 20th (usually), an uninvolved administrator will look at the discussion and determine if there is a consensus to close the discussion. If there's not, they'll relist the discussion for 1-3 additional weeks, checking in each week to see how the discussion has evolved. Otherwise, they'll close the discussion and take whatever the consensus action is (such as deleting the article). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Telepathy Tapes - I do think Dickens meets WP:NDIRECTOR as it is usually applied, but without good secondary coverage to meet WP:GNG I'm skeptical of maintaining this as its own article. (I'm not particularly concerned about WP:PROMO here; the article is short, and can be trivially reduced to a series of simple verifiable claims by removing the awards and recognitions section entirely and trimming Career.) I suspect that higher-quality profiles of Dickens are imminent, given the recent prominence of The Telepathy Tapes. This review in The Times, for example, contains a few substantive sentences on Dickens. A few more sources like that would lead me to vote Keep. For now, we're better off selectively merging info (a few sentences at most) about the host to The Telepathy Tapes. Suriname0 (talk) 01:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge as long as Sole Survivor (2013 film) and Fish Out of Water (2009 film) are standalone articles. As a reader, there's nothing more frustrating than clicking a name in an article about a work to learn about them and being redirected to an article about another work. Delete is a far more preferable outcome. Nardog (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally still would softly favor a merge (as a reader, I prefer ending up on the page that has the most information about them), but pageview data suggests that the Sole Survivor page had 10000 views in 2024, which does make a redirect much less appealing. Suriname0 (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. First off, this is such a mess right now that it would take a huge amount of time and effort to fix the multiple, obvious, tag-able issues. Secondly, as Jay8g discovered and reverted, autobiographical edits by the subject or a close contact, are reason enough to delete or at least page-protect. Third, the subject's major claim to notability is based upon a fringe idea. Meta and X might allow such biased opinions, but we are not primarily a social media platform. I'm not against a redirect to The Telepathy Tapes, which is labeled as speculative and is possibly notable (although I don't concede that). Bearian (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 HEC Paris. ✗plicit 14:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HEC Paris Innovation & Entrepreneurship Institute

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

I could not find any SIRS sources. Janhrach (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, Economics, and France. Janhrach (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with HEC Paris (see WP:MERGEREASON#4). BilletsMauves^€500 16:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Agree with BilletsMauves. Not notable enough to warrant its own article, but could be merged with the main HEC article. --McSly (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nejaru (Mother & daughter/son) Murder Case

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

Aside from the abhorrently formatted title, I was unable to find anything that indicates this passes WP:NEVENT. All sources I could find are breaking news, trial updates and low quality, though there could be more in non-English languages. If kept (I could very well be missing sources, Indian news never shows up in search for me) the common title is something like ""Udupi quadruple murder" and it should be moved to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. One time routine news event that had no significant lasting effect, and had no enduring historical significance and does not meet the general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horae Beatae Mariae Virginis (Rps BOZ 44)

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

This specific manuscript does not appear to be notable, as there is only one source for it with anything approaching sigcov. There appear to be several other items with the same name, that may or may not be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reelmonk

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - defunct streaming platform; not a unicorn; usual caveats for Indian media. This is really only of use for historical purposes. Bearian (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage and depth worthy of notice about the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biba Apparels

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 22 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!} 09:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless someone can provide me something to the contrary, I am only finding mentions and churnalism (or unreliable soruces). Some press looks okay such as this and this but these are WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources without bylines and likely paid, churnalism, or non-independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor and dead link sources. Most of the sources are promotional, advertising and routine. Company fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 10:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enrico Thanhoffer

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was speedy deleted (A7) in 2015 but recreated. Various editors have tweaked it over the years but it still seems like a promotional piece for a non-notable artist. Mccapra (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Architecture, and Italy. Mccapra (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is correctly nominated for deletion due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:N. Gedaali (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost 10 years since last AfDs (closed as not consensus and speedy) and still no indication of notability. jni^{(talk)(delete)} 13:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source assess table below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.artavita.com/artists/2318-enrico-thanhoffer	Artavita, an online gallery where artists can connect, see, and be seen while staying current on events, exhibitions and opportunities to share their work.		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/user/globismoatelier	Self published YouTube video		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwjqK5zXvhg		churnalism	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20161128134120/http://www.archilovers.com/munico-thanhoffer/		archived promiotional page	✘ No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Thanhoffer	Self published YouTube video		✘ No
https://businesscabal.com/daniel-libeskind-and-the-draft-enrico-thanhoffer-munico/		churnalism	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 10:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eduport

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

I am unable to find significant coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. B-Factor (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, India, and Kerala. B-Factor (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Secondary sources are not available to provide sufficient substantial coverage to demonstrate the subject's notability under WP:ORGCRIT. Gedaali (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 06:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tin Lok Lane

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

The reason why this article exists is unclear. It was prodded and deprodded over a decade ago for a vague reason. Even the Yue Chinese version has no sources. Searching Google in both Chinese and English seems to only yield results describing events and locations near the street, with nothing appearing to establish notability for the street itself. Notability is, of course, not inherited. Anonymous 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:
Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and may be notable if they satisfy the WP:GNG criteria, the criteria of another subject-specific notability guideline, or other criteria within this notability guideline.

Sources
1. Crisswell, Colin (1977-10-09). "The vanishing city: Tin Lok Lane". South China Morning Post. ProQuest 1529521148.
  The article notes: "At the start of Tin Lok Lane, about opposite Wanchai Road, is the last remaining houses of a row with a bawdy past. Before World War I this row housed somewhat faded blooms, many from Vienna, who rented their charms for the small fee of $2. ... Around the time of World War I, the Government opium factory was still situated at the end of Tin Lok Lane. Here, half naked coolies could be seen stirring pans of steaming opium. Tin Lok Lane translated means Lane of Heavenly Happiness and probably derives from these activities. ..."
2. "短街天樂裡" [Tin Lok Lane, Short Street]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2001-08-02. p. D5.
  The article notes: "至於極短的街道﹐灣仔區也有。如銜接摩利臣山道的天樂裡。好一條交通頻繁的行車馬路﹐卻僅得十間箾位。當眼的路牌也只有三個。又有誰知道﹐此即是百年前洋水手尋樂之地的天樂裡﹔而左轉橫街的鵝頸街市所在的一段灣仔道﹐據街坊說﹐當年也叫天樂裡﹗"
  From Google Translate: "As for very short streets, they are also found in Wan Chai District. Such as Tianleli, which connects Morrison Mountain Road. It's a road with frequent traffic, but there are only ten stalls. There are only three street signs that stand out. Who knew that this was Tin Lok Lane where foreign sailors had fun a hundred years ago? And the section of Wan Chai Road where Gooseneck Market, which turns left across the street, is located, according to neighbors, was also called Tin Lok Lane back then!"
3. "Transactions of the Second Biennial Congress Held at Hongkong, 1912". Far Eastern Association of Tropical Medicine. 1912. Retrieved 2025-01-05 – via Google Books.
  This article from the journal The International History Review discusses the Far Eastern Association of Tropical Medicine (FEATM):
  The FEATM became a forum-based regional organisation and held ten conferences from 1910 to 1938. The first, in Manila, saw the participation of seventy-six experts from 'India, Ceylon, Siam, Netherlands India, Federated Malay States, Straits Settlements, Hong Kong, Philippine[s] Islands, Tsingtau ([or Qingdao in China, represented by] Imperial German Government), and Japan'. It was a medical-expert organisation and governmental. Its member units were expert organisations located in countries in the region, with key positions selected by these organisations. Participants, however, represented their respective governments, rather than their professions. Many were colonial officers in charge of quarantine, or from colonial medical institutions. Invitations were sent through diplomatic channels. Governments funded the participants' travel expenses and a conference when their unit hosted it. In Asia—with the exception of Japan, China, and Siam—a majority of the administrative units were colonial governments, and they became the member units of the FEATM.
  The source notes: "There has been a curious tendency of late years to alter the names of certain streets which mark great epochs in the life of our Colony, and to confer upon them Chinese names. Thus the street leading from the Eastern Praya to the Happy Valley was known for very many years as "Observation Place", so named because at this very spot Captain Belcher, R.N., of H.M.S. Sulphur, who took possession of the island in January, 1841, took his first observations for latitude and longitude. It is now known as "Tin Lok Lane " which literally translated can only mean "Happy heaven lane", this may relate to the heavenly bodies from which the observations were taken, or more probably perhaps it refers to the fact that the street or more probably perhaps it refers to the fact that the street or lane leads to the Happy Valley; but in any case the neighbourhood is practically a European one and it is difficult to understand the reason for the change of designation."
4. "Wanchai traffic will ease". South China Morning Post. 1977-05-20. ProQuest 1529232043.
  The article notes: "Traffic flow in Wanchai is expected to be greatly improved when work on the widening of Tin Lok Lane and Morrison Hill Road is finished. A Government spokesman ... pointed out that Tin Lok Lane and Morrison Hill Road are important links for traffic heading for, the Cross Harbour Tunnel from Wanchai. "The roads are now heavily used and because of the location of the tram tracks along Morrison Hill Road and Tin Lok Lane, only two traffic lanes are available for buses and cars. ... He said that in addition, a signal controlled pedestrian crossing would also be provided at the junction of Tin Lok Lane and Wanchai Road."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tin Lok Lane (traditional Chinese: 天樂里; simplified Chinese: 天乐里) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage cited is not significant and the road is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Geschichte (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The South China Morning Post and Ta Kung Pao published articles about the road. The road was the place where Captain Edward Belcher of the HMS Sulphur "who took possession of the island in January, 1841, took his first observations for latitude and longitude". This historically significant road has received significant coverage and is not run-of-the-mill. Cunard (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard. This coverage is not run-of-the-mill. The sources discuss the street as a subject of historical interest and mention its importance in Hong Kong. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the analysis by Cunard and Mx. Granger on the sources. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 09:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. This was closed by an involved non-admin in breach of WP:NACD. In the time between it being closed and reopened by myself, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susovan Roy (2nd nomination) was filed. This AfD is therefore no longer required. Daniel (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

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

No coverage in reliable sources and minor roles in TV Series, does not passes WP:ACTOR. Taabii (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. (non-admin closure) Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calito Soul

AfDs for this article:

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

An anonymous IP asked that I bring this to AFD on my talk page. It's been tagged for OR and sourcing issues since 2012. I have no opinion on the notability of this person, and am only bringing it here on behalf of 190.219.101.187 4meter4 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY WITHDRAW. I see now this has gone through multiple WP:AFDs. The last one which involved a WP:SOCK. It's possible I got duped into renominating this for that same editor. I should have looked at the talk page for prior AFDs and I didn't which was my mistake. I only looked at the article itself. I am not going to support another AFD after a clear keep outcome in a 2024 AFD ruling.4meter4 (talk) 05:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 that article is supposedly about a musician who in my opinion does not comply with WP:SINGER and neither WP:GNG did not stand out in anything nor can I find strong references that are reliable, and furthermore it is not known. Do you know if he is alive or dead?. WP:PROMO delete. 190.219.101.187 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Panama, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the third nomination (two months ago), voters found several sources with reliable info about the singer, but nobody ever used them to improve the article. That's the main problem to be solved now, because the current version of the article says nothing about the singer but it could be expanded. See WP:NEXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Dov Brody

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT/WP:BIO1E (same way we apply WP:VICTIM in subjects only known for their death.) The article is sourced to a bunch of news coverage in November 2008 over a two week period. No indication of lasting significance in WP:SUSTAINED or WP:DIVERSE sources. If this is kept it should not be titled as a biography page as the person was not notable outside this event.4meter4 (talk) 4meter4 (talk) 05:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Judaism, Medicine, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Bonetti

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:GNG. Poker player article referenced entirely to poker playing database website which is not usable towards notability post the RFC. Likewise bluffmedia.com is not a reliable source.4meter4 (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Blechman

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

Tagged for notability since 2016. Time for the community to decide whether or not this person is notable. Unclear if the subject meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Radio, Internet, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Blackwell

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. I tried finding sources, and I was able to find lots of WP:PRIMARY materials in presidential libraries, government websites, and in government publications. The best secondary source I found was this one in The New York Times but so much of it is quoting what people said, including Blackwell, and not independent reporting/analysis it's difficult to know whether this too shouldn't be considered a primary document as well. I was unable to locate any source that wasn't PRIMARY that gave a big picture overview of Blackwell. Altogether, couldn't find enough to demonstrate WP:GNG is met.4meter4 (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Florida, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 06:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud El Shenawy

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

No in depth coverage I could find except for the one proper source included, so subject does not appear notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 06:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Abu Al-Maati

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

Youth player promoted to full team training. No in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Mccapra (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 06:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Magdy

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

There’s another Ahmed Magdy who played for Zamalek who is notable, but this one doesn’t seem to be. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Egypt. Mccapra (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 06:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edi Birsan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL. News coverage is all targeted at assumption of office announcements. Nothing here that could be considered anything other than WP:ROUTINE for a local mayor of a small city.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have a conflict of interest, but I would say we should delete the article. The article was actually created before he was an elected official, because it was about his gaming career. However, most of this information was deleted due to the sources not being reliable enough. To my knowledge, no other Concord City Councilmember has a Wikipedia page unless they have held a higher office. Prcc27 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Video games, and California. Heart ^(talk) 04:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable council member/mayor for a small municipality who has not received any press outside of his region of influence. His gaming accolades also do not meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Mallers

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

After doing a WP:BEFORE, it doesn't seem like he quite meets GNG. This is the only source that might help, but the rest are mostly unreliable crypto sites or passing mentions. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cryptocurrency-related deletion discussions. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Software, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands - crypto sites and passing mentions. Not enough in solid RSes to base a BLP on - David Gerard (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Elbousty

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

Non-notable academic. I cannot find any evidence that he passes WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NAUTHOR, his books (many of which are his translations of others' works) do not appear to be widely reviewed and I could not find more than one review for any of them. As for WP:NACADEMIC, he holds a non-tenure-track role, has an average h-index for his level/discipline, and does not meet any other requirements. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, the Ordre des Palmes Academique does not seem to be a rare award (see here) and the only evidence I can find that he was awarded it is his own webpage. All in all, no qualification on any standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Middle East, and United States of America. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question. How did the nominator obtain his h-index? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mbyEHFcAAAAJ&hl=en. Pretty standard in AfDs of academics. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ( h-index = 7 in a very low-cited field) Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Exactly, in the range of average for a post-doc level academic. Someone passing WP:NACADEMIC on criterion 1 would be expected to have an above average h-index. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Morocco, Georgia (U.S. state), and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find one published review of one book [30]/[31]; that's not enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the citation record examined above is obviously not going to pass WP:PROF#C1. The knighthood can be verified at [32] but I'm not convinced it's enough either, and I see no evidence for any other form of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What knighthood? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The Ordre des Palmes académiques is a knighthood. Its lowest order members are chevaliers – literally knights. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there are thousands of them; it's not a rare or unusual honor. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stalcup Corner, Indiana

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

Baker calls it a village but even more than most this has little footprint; the Greene County tourism page for it is blank, and there al almost no book hits for it. Something of a mystery actually that there's so little mention of it. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No info, no article. Topo map from 1943 [33] shows it looking pretty much like it does today: A rural intersection with a couple of farmhouses. That's not a village. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Collegiate Network. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Ichthus

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

Can't find WP:SIGCOV for this, article mostly relies on primary sources. Side note, the article's tone is also a little inappropriate for an encyclopedia; makes persuasive arguments. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Schools, and Massachusetts. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No independent sources have been provided. Almost all the links are to this publication's own website. The only one that isn't is a broken link to the Harvard University website, which, I suspect, used to be a listing of this publication as being a student organization. But that would only establish existence, not notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Collegiate Network (where it is listed) as an AtD. No standalone notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete or Redirect - agree with nom Asteramellus (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Center La Gran Via

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

Just a generic shopping mall. Nothing here to indicate that this mall passes WP:ORGCRIT as a business or WP:NBUILDING as a building.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach

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

This appears well-referenced, but no reference mentions the term "lineage-instructive" in their heading. It is not obvious this meets WP:NLIST. Further, there is no criteria given for why those particular examples are included (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Perhaps per WP:ATD-R this could be merged and redirected to transdifferentiation, which is not too long. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Back in May 2012, User:Ilee0913 created two articles, this one (Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by lineage-instructive approach) and its sister Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation by initial epigenetic activation phase approach. The pairing makes it clear that the odd phrasing is simply a marker for the different selections in the two articles. As nom says, the sourcing is robust. It may be that the two could simply be merged, with 'By lineage-instructive approach' becoming one chapter, and 'By initial epigenetic activation phase approach' becoming another chapter. In that case the merged article should be titled Examples of in vitro transdifferentiation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap I think "Examples of..." is a pretty bad type of Wikipedia article (almost as bad as "Instruction to..."). Merge is a good idea, but why hot merge both to transdifferentiation? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if it doesn't unbalance the article under a load of examples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap Well, is a list of examples even encyclopedic? Smacks of WP:OR. What criteria has been used to select these examples? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the criteria will disappear under a merge, so the question is academic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is any more support to a Merge and also to determine what the Merge target article is actually being suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't merge: I'm sorry to derail the growing Merge consensus, but the content of this article simply isn't encyclopedic. Transdifferentiation gives a summary of the methods used to induce transdifferentiation, with a few well-chosen examples (though we should delete the "Here is a list of examples" statements from that article). This list is a bunch of context-free citations to primary literature; anyone who understands what each entry means would probably consult a review article, rather than Wikipedia, if they need examples. Redirect seems pointless because this is such an unlikely search term. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Still no consensus between Merge and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be a 'list of things in a similar category that a user could find', which is not a good list criteria. And it's not clear that the grouping of examples is notable in a different way than transdifferentiation itself. That page already has a short section on examples, written in prose style. If anyone wants to add more pertinent examples on the main page, please do, but these two lists are basically someone's notes. Wizmut (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 New York City Fire Department#September 11 attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard A. Barbara

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

Fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL/WP:VICTIM. The sources are mainly in context to his death as a firefighter on 9/11. Like many first responders he gave his life that day. An admirable man but the sourcing isn't there to meet WP:GNG external to his death.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New_York_City_Fire_Department#September_11_attacks or a similar 9/11 memorials page. Barbara is not otherwise notable. Star Mississippi 04:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 4meter4 is correct about subject's notability. As long as it is done consistently in this situation, i.e. not WP:GNG biography but subject was a good brave soul and first responder (I don't know how common these sort of memorial pages that shouldn't have been created to begin with), making it into a redirect as suggested by Star Mississippi seems reasonable to me.--FeralOink (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Terrorism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soobin

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

The subject of this article has not yet demonstrated individual notability outside of his band, Tomorrow X Together, which is a criteria per the notability guideline at WP:BANDMEMBER. This is evident from the largely empty "Career" section that shows very little in the way of individual activity that would assist in establishing individual notability.

Subject has not released any solo singles that have charted anywhere that could assist in establishing individual notability, or participated in any activities of note outside of his membership in the band.

Recommend redirect to Tomorrow X Together

Note this AfD is the result of a contested WP:BLAR RachelTensions (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Korea, and South Korea. RachelTensions (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft: Redirect this article to Tomorrow X Together and move the content of this article to draft instead SnowKang (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the above commenter is the creator and (by-far) the largest author of this article, who seems to agree that the article should be re-draftified. RachelTensions (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd say the article demonstrates him meeting a few points of WP:GNG. Nominator has said the subject has not "participated in any activities of note outside of his membership in the band" -- yet he MC'd Music Bank which got him a notable award and media coverage beyond simply the press releases about the show. Further to that, his recent leave of absence has been covered by a few reliable sources too. I'd say this article can stay, even if he hasn't released any solo music. orangesclub 🍊 23:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has said the subject has not "participated in any activities of note outside of his membership in the band" -- yet he MC'd Music Bank which got him a notable award and media coverage beyond simply the press releases about the show.

If it were the case that a stint on Music Bank qualifies someone for GNG then there'd be more material to write about than just two sentences. I don't know of any other information that could be reasonably added regarding that event that wouldn't be trivial fancruft.

As far as a few articles of coverage of an announcement of a temporary leave of absence from the band for health reasons being an indicator of notability independent of that band, I'm not seeing it. That's still covering him in the context of being a member of the band, IMO. RachelTensions (talk) 05:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as the person hasn't met WP:MUSICBIO in general. 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 02:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the case the article is deleted, do not make Soobin a redirect to Tomorrow X Together, but rather make it redirect to Su-bin. Even if the article is kept, it should be retitled under a different name, and Soobin serving as a redirect to Su-bin. Su-bin/Soo-bin (수빈) is one of the most common names in South Korea, and this individual is no Elvis or Adele that he is more notable than the name. From the PageViews Analysis [34], he isn't even the most famous Soobin. Even on the Korean wiki, the page Soobin (singer) [35] is the article name of a singer from a girl group not the subject of this article. It is clear that he isn't the primary topic for Soobin. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 04:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Ubatuba Cessna CitationJet crash

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/2025 Ubatuba Cessna CitationJet crash

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

Again, Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROTM and WP:TOOSOON. Protoeus (talk)

I agree with Protoeus. This article fails WP:NOTNEWS. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 00:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...and not to mention, runway excursions are common in aviation. ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete article has multiple issues within itself (wording, tertiary and secondary sourcing etc.) and was obviously written based off of only Primary Sources, the accident described here is not notable as it is a single fatality and as ThisGuy has said above runway excursions or incursions are generally not notable unless they are a high fatality or high importance incident. WP:NOTNEWS WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE WP:NOTABILITY. Lolzer3k 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per above. There's nothing about this sad but not terribly uncommon GA accident that suggests it's going to be of lasting interest. Mangoe (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and there's no long lasting coverage or notability.

Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, contact me or make a request at WP:REFUND Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Nader

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

He does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy. All sources focus on a single event—his cancer diagnosis. There is no significant or varied coverage, and the article appears promotional. فيصل (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Iraq. فيصل (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Photography, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither significant coverage nor any notable achievements are evident.Gedaali (talk) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article according to a friend recommendation. I know notability issue is debated. When I worked to create this article, I asked some other editor for their opinion. محمود (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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