Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 04	January 06 >

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Walker (politician)

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

Fails GNG, WP:POLITICIAN - average non-notable local politician TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The New Zealand politics task force agreed many years ago that three types of New Zealand politicians have inherent notability, namely legislative councillors, MPs, and Auckland councillors. The latter group was included because as their councillors represent way more people than any electorate MP does. Needless to say, Auckland councillors thus get a lot of media coverage. Schwede 66 00:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand politics task force doesn't get to create its own special variant exemptions from WP:NPOL. There wouldn't be a problem with this if it were properly sourced, but Kiwis don't get to arbitrarily decree that their city councillors are exempted from having to pass WP:NPOL #2 just the same as city councillors anywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can actually add the kind of content and sourcing it takes to properly establish the notability of a city councillor. As I noted above, the New Zealand task force doesn't get to carve out its own special New Zealand-specific exemptions from notability criteria — in any country, city councillors can keep articles that are reliably sourced and feature substantive content about the person's political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth), but in no country are city councillors ever exempted from the article having to be a lot more than just a bunch of primary sourced election results. So this could be kept if somebody's actually willing to put some effort into improving it, but its current state of substance and sourcing is not adequate at all. I'll grant that Auckland is a large and prominent enough city that such improvement may very well be possible, which is why I left that open for an "I could be persuaded to change my mind" proviso, but there's no automatic presumption of notability for a city councillor in the absence of such content and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per policy-based reasoning by Bearcat. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same reasons TheLoyalOrder mentoned. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete didn't locate any SIGCOV and the current sourcing in the article is far below the standard a BLP should have. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per others above, I agree NZ local councillors should not get special (lower) notability criteria.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:37, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Anonymous 05:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William A. Raidy

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

The only sources given by this article are two brief obituaries. Most mentions of "William Raidy" online appear to be about a different individual who died more recently. Everything else I can find seems to be directly taken from this article. Anonymous 23:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and New York. Anonymous 23:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was a WP:BEFORE followed? Both obits are from the the staff written sections in The New York Times and Variety (ie not the paid for obit sections). Together I think they meet WP:GNG on there own. Generally an NYT obit by itself is a strong indicator that other sources exist that will meet WP:GNG. For example, a quick search in the internet archive yielded this article from 1966: Brown, Robert U., ed. (December 24, 1966). "Raidy Writes About Broadway Theater". Editor and Publisher. 99 (52): 26. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally an NYT obit by itself is a strong indicator that other sources exist that will meet WP:GNG. Do other sources exist? You created this article (as you probably should have mentioned in your vote), so if anyone would know, it would be you. I did indeed do some extensive searching before nominating, and those two obituaries were the only sources I could find, aside from some passing mentions of his name and his own works. Unless you or someone else can find additional sources, the question remains whether these staff written obituaries alone can meet GNG. Anonymous 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: You have since edited your reply. I am now more inclined to consider keeping. Anonymous 02:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by 4meter4. Generally an NYT obit by itself is a strong indicator that other sources exist that will meet WP:GNG is correct. Here are additional sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Jfire (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 23:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Watson (New Zealand politician)

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

Fails GNG, WP:POLITICIAN - average non-notable local politician TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The New Zealand politics task force agreed many years ago that three types of New Zealand politicians have inherent notability, namely legislative councillors, MPs, and Auckland councillors. The latter group was included because as their councillors represent way more people than any electorate MP does. Needless to say, Auckland councillors thus get a lot of media coverage. Schwede 66 00:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok but they don't actually get more coverage? I don't think Auckland local councillors should get some special carve out of GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

could you point me to where the conversation was? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any independent SIGCOV. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person does not seem particularly notable. I don't think NZ local politicians (regardless of where they are) should be considered automatically notable. They should still meet WP:GNG to get an article. This person does not appear to pass gng to me. That aside this article has some major WP:NPOV problems.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:28, 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 merge‎ to Double Fine. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double Fine Comics

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

A list of webcomics. The ancient last AfD had one keep vote for lack of rationale. There are two separate articles on minigames, My Game About Me: Olympic Challenge and Tasha's Game. I don't believe the The International House of Mojo is an independent source here. IgelRM (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Webcomics. IgelRM (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Fine Action Comics IgelRM (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to propose merging the small-scale games into this article, but I am exceedingly frustrated at how few of our sources on those actually even mention the source material for them. The Comics Alliance source seems like the most solid one here, but that doesn't carry an article. I got nothing on Double Fine Action Comics in my books either, and sadly I've become incapable of searching the web due to changes to google, so I will have to concur... Merge and Redirect into Double Fine. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:31, 1 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 Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect into Double Fine. Minuscule notability to even afford mentions at should-be source article. MimirIsSmart (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or selective merge to Double Fine. Only found WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and not WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:17, 7 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sayers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG, average non-notable local politician TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The New Zealand politics task force agreed many years ago that three types of New Zealand politicians have inherent notability, namely legislative councillors, MPs, and Auckland councillors. The latter group was included because as their councillors represent way more people than any electorate MP does. Needless to say, Auckland councillors thus get a lot of media coverage.
Delete unless somebody can actually add the kind of content and sourcing it takes to properly establish the notability of a city councillor. The New Zealand task force doesn't get to carve out its own special New Zealand-specific exemptions from notability criteria — in any country, city councillors can keep articles that are reliably sourced and feature substantive content about the person's political impact (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, and on and so forth), but in no country are city councillors ever exempted from the article having to be a lot more than just a bunch of primary sourced election results. So this could be kept if somebody's actually willing to put some effort into improving it, but its current state of substance and sourcing is not adequate at all. I'll grant that Auckland is a large and prominent enough city that such improvement may very well be possible, which is why I left that open for an "I could be persuaded to change my mind" proviso, but there's no automatic presumption of notability for a city councillor in the absence of such content and sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only independent article that provides coverage of the person that I could find is this: [5]

It doesn't matter what some Wikiproject taskforce agreed upon nor can you snow keep when you are the only one voting keep, GNG/NBIO is what matters here. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, Bearcat and Traumnovelle. Classic case of trying to clear a notability bar which is less a limbo bar and more of a stick lying on the ground. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Councillor is one of the most notable in Auckland Council, being number three in the power structure. He works at a central Government level which other Auckland Councillors do not. He meets the Wiki criteria for inclusion well ahead of other Auckland Councillors who are currently not nominated for deletion review. LorryMcc, 11 January 2025 — LorryMcc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete as I don't think local councillors in NZ should get special exemption from WP:GNG, and this person doesn't quite pas GNG to me. There are some Stuff articles about their election but I don't think its enough to for GNG. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 03:34, 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 redirect‎ to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners#1993. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Faid

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

Reliable sources mentioning Faid only mention him for a single thing: his theory that Mikhail Gorbachev is the Antichrist, for which he received the satirical Ig Nobel Prize. Here are three such sources; note that the third has merely a passing mention:

Levine, Art (June 4, 1988). "THE DEVIL IN GORBACHEV". Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 5, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Abrahams, Marc (May 10, 2004). "Devilish digits". The Guardian. Archived from the original on August 8, 2022. Retrieved December 29, 2024.
Whisker, Daniel (July 2012). "Apocalyptic Rhetoric on the American Religious Right: Quasi-Charisma and Anti-Charisma". Max Weber Studies. 12 (2): 159–184 – via JSTOR. The periodic modification of the specific signs of prophetic fulfilment is a key feature of the discourse: no-one now presents Mikhail Gorbachev as a potential Antichrist, as did Robert Faid in 1988 (Faid 1988), or the Native Americans as Antichrist's army, as did Cotton Mather in 1693 (Boyer 1992).

In its current state, the article contains information far beyond this single thing. This information is either completely unsourced or copied verbatim, in what I assume is a copyright violation, from Faid's obituary on Legacy.com, an unreliable source which hosts user-generated content and nonsensically claims that Faid "held the honor of being in the top ten nuclear scientists until 1975".

In my opinion, this single thing for which Faid is known is not enough to make him notable. Instead, this information, along with the three sources above, would be better suited as a part of a different article, perhaps List of conspiracy theories § Antichrist or Faid's entry at List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 22:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. Also add more info in the target page about his Antichrist theories, the one thing reliable sources confirm about him.

JekyllTheFabulous (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Christianity, Engineering, Maryland, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The entire Biography section was all but a direct copy from his 2008 Baltimore Sun obituary - and has been since April 2009. I've removed the copyvio text and RD1'd the article history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion, although I'm not opposed to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, since I didn't state an opinion in my original post, I agree with the sentiment to redirect and merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 01:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~redirect and merge to List of Ig Nobel Prize winners § 1993~~. 190.219.101.187 (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 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.

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!} 21:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Haddawy

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

Non-notable American businessman with no WP:SIGCOV to be found. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Technology, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crypto spam article. Nothing for notability, 40 under 40 isn't notable, nor does much of the rest help. No sourcing we can use, this is all I could find [6], a PR item. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, Nevada, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day awards for up and coming but ultimately run of the mill business person. And no, Bloomberg doesn't add to notability. Bearian (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Southwestern University#Athletics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southwestern University Soccer Field

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

Redirect to Southwestern University#Athletics. No evidence of independent notability for this NCAA Division III-level soccer field. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southwestern University#Athletics.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. Heart ^(talk) 03:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. asilvering (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pádhraic Ó Comáin

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe. --Altenmann >talk 18:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NWRITER and WP:GNG. In terms of WP:NWRITER, the body and sources (the only ones seemingly available) simply confirm that the subject transcribed the works of other people. Which isn't sufficient for notability under that guideline. In terms of WP:GNG, there is no evidence that the person has been the subject of material/biographical coverage (as a subject in his own right). Certainly I cannot find any (and it's not like the subject lived in prehistory or even the early modern period, where biographical information on people would have been scant; If the subject was well-known through the end of the late 19th century, surely there would be some biographical coverage? The subject was active c. 1880. The same period as Oscar Wilde and Bram Stoker and Sheridan Le Fanu and George Bernard Shaw - not the depths of prehistory...) Guliolopez (talk) 21:44, 5 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. asilvering (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mícheál Ó Ceallaigh

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

Nonnotable Irish scribe --Altenmann >talk 18:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NWRITER. The only source in the article (which is pretty much the only one that I can find) only deals with the subject in passing. Barely mentioned once. A single "name drop". On page 631. Where he is given as having transcribed (written out) works by Antoine Ó Raifteiri. Simply transcribing someone else's work isn't enough to meet WP:NWRITER. And the lack of any biographical information (which we'd expect to find for a 19th century writer compared to -say- writers from even the 18th or 17th centuries) means that WP:GNG isn't met. Even the article itself states that the subject is "only known for very few manuscripts". This is, with respect, yet another of these "absolutely every passing mention I find will be reflected in a stand-alone biographical title (no matter what)" from this article's creator. Guliolopez (talk) 21:22, 5 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. I've also SALTed Star Mississippi 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Savchenko (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted twice before. There doesn't seem to be any meaningful improvement over the last two deletions. Still appears to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Article also appears to be a victim of WP:REFBOMBing. I suggest a WP:SALT for this one. Anwegmann (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is Andriyrussu your alternative account? You have very similar names. It took me a few minutes to realize that this article was not created by you. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. I'm a bit taken aback that you would even ask. Anwegmann (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre accusation. JoelleJay (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to subject discussion. CNC (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT to prevent further recreation. Oh dear... Not again... ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:28, 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)} 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – As GiantSnowman had already suggested in the last AfD. Lost cause. Svartner (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - which I suggested last time... Giant Snowman 18:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - before it comes back to haunt us again. CNC (talk) 18:45, 5 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. Star Mississippi 15:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Heinz

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

This Darts player has had a notability tag for over 6 years and I can't find SIGCOV to remove it. Failing GNG. Canary757 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Germany. Canary757 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, participated in Challenge Tours and qualified for 2 European Tours, but nothing really significant with no significant coverage. JamesVilla44 (talk) 16:12, 5 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. Star Mississippi 15:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Olive Duck

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, once the trial was over it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1925) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I understand what you are expecting for this article. This murder happened a century ago. Her father was convicted of her murder. Are you looking for an Aftermath section at the bottom? Can you link a similar article that is written the way you think this should be? — Maile (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 I am expecting it to not exist. Not every news item should get a page, and this does not meet NEVENT or GNG (all sourcing is WP:PRIMARYNEWS). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a routine event, even if it was 100 yrs ago. Guy does bad thing, goes to trial, gets jailed. Like the other two murders discussed in the final paragraph, it got media attention, so was sensationalized. Nothing notable about the media hyping up a story to sell papers. Oaktree b (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:EVENT. We don't create articles for every murder. LibStar (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search on Trove reveals lots of local coverage from 1925 but nothing after that and nothing with any real depth. Seems to fail WP:NEVENT. For it to be notable, I would expect to see some kind of WP:LASTING coverage published more than a couple of months after the murder, and some coverage that goes beyond the routine details of the trial. For instance, the Gun Alley Murder is a somewhat similar Australian murder case from the same period, and its sources very clearly demonstrate its notability by comparison. MCE89 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried case of a sensational murder from a century ago of no lasting historic importance. Pretty much a TRUECRIME ONEEVENT thing. Carrite (talk) 23:33, 10 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 Greater Manchester Police. Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Manchester Airport police incident

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

Doubtful that this passes NEVENT. All coverage is along the lines of this thing happened, with little depth, and mostly a flash in the pan type story. ATD redirect to Greater Manchester Police, since it's already mentioned there PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and England. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (events). The event's already covered in Greater Manchester Police so recommend redirecting there. XwycP3 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 5 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. asilvering (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout in the European Parliament elections

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

This article reads like an essay, and indeed was one written for a university assignment. The topic could probably be covered in sufficient detail in a new section in Elections to the European Parliament rather than being a heavily padded-out standalone article. Number 5 7 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are issues with this article, but deletion of this article is no solution as this is a topic worthy of retention on wikipedia BlunanNation (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The voice is certainly more academic than encyclopedic and I usually dislike new articles from students, but there's a decent amount of good content here, as well as a lot of solid sources specifically on the topic. Much better than most assignments I see! It could use clean up and trimming, but not cut so much that a merge makes more sense. Reywas92^Talk 16:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Elections to the European Parliament in a new section. The information is worth retaining and well sourced but more logical to include within the entry on the elections as a whole. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a much discussed subject with more than enough literature to support an independent article (cf. Voter turnout in United States presidential elections, Voter turnout in Canada). There is not space within Elections to the European Parliament to deal with the issue of turnout in anything other than WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, so I would oppose a merger. Furius (talk) 16:44, 5 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. Deletes outnumber the keeps too strongly to close this any other way, but I don't think the keeps have been clearly refuted, so consider this a "delete without prejudice to recreation" - but if you're going to recreate it, at least give us something longer than a stub to argue over at AfD in the future. asilvering (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desi words

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

Poorly written article. If improved, it would still contradict WP:NOTDICT. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to be a perfectly notable topic, see Scholar. Goes far beyond a Dictionary entry!!! -Mushy Yank. 01:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore in popular usage "Desi word" means totally different than what it's written in the article.CharlesWain (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article currently is indeed a dictionary definition. The article is also borderline original research. Also, we already have a full-fledged article at desi. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (really more a "Don't Delete"): Given the duplication between tadbhava and tatsama, I suspect that a merged etymological classes in Middle Indo-Aryan languages or similar article would be better (though that needs expertise - "Gramya"/"Desya" distinction? Continued use of classes for later Indo-Aryan languages?). In the absence of such an article, there's not a good redirect that I can see. A rename to "Desya words" might be ok. There's more than just dictdef-level coverage on GScholar / GBooks[7][8] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I agree. The article clearly contradicts WP:WINAD and appears to be a POV fork of an older edit version of Desi. There is no justification for retaining this article. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Željka Krizmanić

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Croatia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability, no sources provided and I cannot find any significant coverage of this skater. Would be interested to know why the PROD was removed as no reason given in the edit summary.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02: PROD was removed because this nom does not conduct BEFORE searches and refuses to address any actual coverage in their nominations. JTtheOG (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG Fair enough. Thanks for the answer. Shrug02 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG for this subject. The corresponding wikis don't show notability either. Let'srun (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Doneria

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

Non-notable BLP. Lacks significant coverage Wp:SIGCOV in multiple independent WP:INDEPENDENT reliable sources WP:RS. Zuck28 (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Leader of an organization with over 10 million members. (As per India TV https://www.indiatvnews.com/uttar-pradesh/bajrang-dal-neeraj-doneria-claims-its-members-saved-86-lakh-cows-from-being-slaughtered-love-jihad-against-hindu-woman-muslim-up-news-2023-05-28-873040) 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 04:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He is national convener, but not the leader (ping LordVoldemort728) who's the president of BD -- currently (?) Pravin Togadia [9]. Doneria appears to have no personal sigcov, and his only appearance elsewhere currently is at the BD article in its infobox as the organisation's head, which should be corrected. It may even be that not every past president of BD meets notabity requirements (ref WP:NOTINHERITED and the table at the article), though clearly many do. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a convenor of any Notable organisation does not contribute to Notability of any individual. Taabii (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Licious

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) 08:52, 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) 08:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Internet, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 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!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the caveat that most Indian media nowadays is spoiled (pun intended), the coverage shows this is a unicorn company. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - changed from a Keep upon second look. Created by a new editor who has splashed up articles of dubious notability. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and this page is for promotional and advertisement it seems. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probert Encyclopaedia

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

Cannot find much, if anything on this. Not opposed to merging or redirecting somewhere given how old the article is. If what is described in the article is true I am surprised this isn't notable, or that I cannot find mention of it somewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:33, 8 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 14:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AntoloGaia. Sesso, genere e cultura degli anni '70

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

No reviews, does not pass WP:GNG or NBOOK. The "reception" is the book blurb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Sexuality and gender. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Part of a walled garden of articles related to the author. Cavarrone 11:21, 10 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Data Security Council of India

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

This non-profit organization fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Another alternative is to merge with NASSCOM. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:56, 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) 07:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Maybe Weak Keep, if others have strong reasons to not-keep) - Although the wiki page is not quite developed, seems notable and secondary sources are using information produced by them. e.g. see this and others at google search. Asteramellus (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Data Security Council of India (DSCI) meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline, Organization Notability Guideline, and Government Entity Notability Guideline.

Notability: DSCI is a government-recognized body and widely covered by reliable sources such as [India Today](https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/2024-a-year-of-data-leaks-espionage-and-ddos-attacks-ransomware-data-breach-2654230-2024-12-23) and Google News (https://news.google.com).
As an initiative by NASSCOM and endorsed by the Indian government, DSCI plays a significant role in data privacy and cybersecurity in India. While the article would benefit from better structure and citations, these are editing issues, not valid grounds for deletion. The article should be retained and improved, not deleted.

Cameremote (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 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 Nirma. History is in tact should someone desire a merger Star Mississippi 14:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nuvoco Vistas Corporation

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are some of the best sources I could find. Some coverage is from the time when the company was called "Lafarge India". I'm wary of paid news but the Indian sources don't seem to me to be paid or PR. [10] [11] [12] [13] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon a SIRS table will surely make notability much clearer. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nirma: I don't think the sources I listed above provide enough significant coverage for a standalone article. Only the article about its acquisition of Emami Cement plausibly constitutes sigcov. Note that the company was renamed from Lafarge India despite what the article Nirma currently says. (see [14]) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nirma Group: The company lacks independent significance. It should be redirected to Nirma Group. B-Factor (talk) 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nirma. RangersRus (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nirma at which article there is already a concise summary of the formation and expansion through acquisition of this firm, which does not appear to have specific notability in itself. The history of the redirected article can provide material to expand the summary in the main article, if there is felt to be a need. AllyD (talk) 21:15, 11 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. Valid arguments on both sides. This doesn't seem to be heading towards a consensus, so I see no point in a third relist. Owen× ☎ 23:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of civil disobedience

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

This is a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of random examples of a very large concept, organized by country with some extra random sections on religion and climate change... it's a mess that is effectively a random list of poorly organized examples from the large category. It makes about as much sense as having examples of science fiction books or examples of famous people articles. If scholars discuss particularly famous cases of civil disobedience, those can and should be first covered in the main article, and split only here if we have too many such examples (which is not the case, this is just linked bizarrely from the "Choices" section of the main article, which is not about examples but about aspects of theory). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have lists already listing protests and riots. This list things that don't have their own articles, so aren't notable, just random examples by the whim of a single editor. There is Category:Civil disobedience, showing far more things on it than this list does, and has subcategories listing things into categories for three nations that have the most entries. Dream Focus 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We have an article about civil disobedience. A list of examples helps to explain that concept. The main article is already long, so a separate article makes sense. It could be renamed "list of" or somesuch, and inclusion criteria should be better documented, but I don't have a hard time seeing this as passing WP:LISTN. The topic being very large is a good reason to keep this split rather than list examples in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of civil disobedience movements and keep. The main Civil disobedience is too big. Azuredivay (talk) 09:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Azuredivay We should first have an article on civil disobedience movement. Right now it is just a (bad) redirect. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is that a distinct enough topic from civil disobedience? In that case, I have corrected the target of that redirect to Civil disobedience. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:35, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Civil disobedience. Azuredivay (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. This is a hodgepodge of historical events. An extremely subjective list, if it is a list. Not a valid encyclopedic search term is my real complaint. Carrite (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate list to supplement page Civil disobedience. The list is an interesting and informative list for a poorly educated reader. Not an indiscriminate collection. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 14:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Returns from Troy

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

All of the references are primary sources - i can find no secondary sources about the concept, ie actual discussions of "returns from Troy". Doug Weller talk 08:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR; no significant coverage from secondary sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The returns from Troy are widely discussed, but more often with the term "nostoi" (which is also the name of a lost epic poem about the subject. one option might be to merge this into that, but they aren't actually the same because plenty of return myths cannot be surely traced to the lost epic poem). Examples of scholarly discussion:

Evelyn-White, Hugh G. (1910). "The Myth of the Nostoi". The Classical Review. 24 (7): 201–205. ISSN 0009-840X.
Malkin, Irad (1998). The Returns of Odysseus: Colonization and Ethnicity. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-92026-2., especially the introductory discussion of the importance of myths of return in the development of ancient Greek colonization.
Hornblower, Simon; Biffis, Giulia (2018). The Returning Hero: nostoi and Traditions of Mediterranean Settlement. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-253941-0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Furius (talk • contribs)

Keep: For the reasons stated above. The problem is not that there is a lack of significant coverage; the problem is that it needs adding to the page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The topic is notable, but this is obscured by the articles exclusive focus on ancient primary, sources rather than modern academic ones. Such as Hall, Edith. Return of Ulysses: A Cultural History of Homer's Odyssey. Iran: I.B.Tauris, 2008.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it looks at first glance as though the assertion regarding lack of secondary sources has been refuted, the unsigned comments make me reluctant to close this as is. Some additional views assessing those sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 13:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all sources by respected academics. Endlesspumpkin (talk) Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on google scholar show several additional sources discussing the concept of nostos/nostoi (for example:[15], [16], [17]). The article needs a lot of work, but I don't see a case for deletion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 22:03, 5 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. sources presented are good (non-admin closure) PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Live Free Or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink

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

There aren't actually many proper reviews of this, though many mentions of its writing, so I am unsure if it passes WP:NBOOK. I wouldn't take much issue with it, but I want to resolve the notability tag. If not notable, redirect/merge to Sean Hannity. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Alexander, Harriet (2020-10-23). "Republican party spends nearly $1 million to make Fox News' Sean Hannity a bestseller". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-02-05. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "A stridently pro-Trump Fox News host has seen his book reach the top of the bestsellers list, after the Republican Party spent nearly $1 million buying up copies. Sean Hannity, the highest-paid star on Fox with a contract worth $25 million (£19m) a year, published his fourth book, Live Free or Die, in August. Forbes reported at the time that the 58-year-old was given a multimillion dollar advance for the book, which publishers Simon & Schuster describe as “a look at America’s fight against those who would reverse our tradition of freedom.” On Friday Salon reported that the Republican National Committee spent $492,000 on books in one day — likely all of it, they said, on Hannity's latest."
2. Flood, Alison (2020-08-05). "Sean Hannity removes 'gobbledygook' Latin motto from book cover". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "The Latin motto on Fox News anchor Sean Hannity’s new book has been changed after the original was described as “complete and utter gobbledygook” by a classics student. Hannity’s Live Free or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink, which argues “now is an All Hands on Deck moment to save the Republic”, was published on Tuesday. But as Business Insider pointed out, the Latin motto it uses as a subtitle has been quietly changed from the original jacket. ... After the error was shared widely on social media, the text on Hannity’s book jacket was updated to “Vivamus liberi ne America pereat” – a phrase that McDaniel says on his blog “neatly translates into English to mean, ‘Let us live free so that America will not die’.”"
3. Sollenberger, Roger (2020-09-22). "Republican Party spent hundreds of thousands to buy books by Sean Hannity, Donald Trump Jr". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "The Republican National Committee spent hundreds of thousands of dollars last month on books by Donald Trump Jr. and Fox News personality Sean Hannity, federal records show. ... The RNC promoted Hannity's book, titled "Live Free or Die," in early August, offering signed "priority access" copies as an incentive for political donations of $75 or higher. ... Emails sent from an RNC address in late July suggested that the committee would make bulk pre-orders of the books, and it appears to have reported the first three on Aug. 5 — to Barnes & Noble, Booksamillion.com and Porchlight Books. A Porchlight representative confirmed that the campaign's order in that amount came in before that, and was for copies of Hannity's book. ... It's possible that the entire $405,000 itemized to book retailers were for Hannity's book — which is now a No. 1 bestseller."
4. Battaglio, Stephen (2020-08-03). "Q&A: What would Sean Hannity's Fox News show look like under a Biden presidency?". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "Hannity’s unfettered advocacy for the president is memorialized in a new book out Tuesday, ominously titled “Live Free Or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink.” Signed copies of the manifesto for a second Trump term are being offered by the re-election campaign as a fund-raising incentive for donations over $75. A representative for publisher Simon & Schuster said the Republican National Committee purchased the books through retailers. The tome argues that a victory for Joe Biden and the Democrats in November would “move the country wholesale into socialism and authoritarianism.” Hannity makes a cogent argument for Trump’s economic policies before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. A chapter defending the president’s handling of the public health crisis resulting in more than 150,000 fatalities from the virus is a far tougher sell."
5. Harper, Jennifer (2020-08-03). "Sean Hannity's new book 'Live Free or Die' is a national bestseller before it's published". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "Fox News prime-time host Sean Hannity has not written a book in a decade. The current political and cultural state of the nation, however, has prompted him to take up the pen once again. The result is “Live Free or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink,” which will be published Tuesday. ... The book is already rated a bestseller on Amazon, where it is No. 2 on the overall national list, and No. 1 in such sub-categories as elections, political commentary and political conservatism. Barnes & Noble also ranks Mr. Hannity’s book at the top of the heap, in third place. ... The 352-page book was published by Threshold Editions, the conservative imprint of Simon and Schuster."
6. Ho, Rodney (2020-08-03). "Interview: Sean Hannity on his new book, Trump's presidency and QAnon". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: ""Live Free or Die" is Hannity's first book in a decade. (It's available on Amazon.) ... But last year, he decided to do one anyway, citing he was deeply concerned about attacks on Trump by the left and proposals such as the Green New Deal and free tuition he sees as financially ruinous. ... His book, he said, is a way to go deeper than he could on his shows about the foundational principles of the founding fathers, the failures of socialism and the extreme positions of liberals. He also spends 37 pages touting the successes of Trump's four years in office, from deregulation to trade to judge selection. And he included a chapter defending Trump's coronavirus response. ... And while Hannity is happy his book is No. 1 on both the Amazon and New York Times non-fiction bestseller lists, that isn't why he wrote it, he said. (It didn't hurt that Trump tweeted a recommendation of Hannity's book on Aug. 2, two days before its release.)"
7. Armstrong, Bob (2020-09-19). "Writers fest website launches Sunday". Winnipeg Free Press. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "That question was raised by the discovery that Fox News anchor Sean Hannity placed a Latin subtitle on his recent book that one reader described as “complete and utter gobbledygook.” The book, Live Free or Die: America (and the World) on the Brink, originally had a Latin tagline reading “vivamus vel libero perit Americae,” which Hannity said means “live free or America dies,” but which doesn’t follow any of the complicated rules of Latin grammar. After the “unintelligible word salad” was pointed out by classics students and professors, the latest printing of the book bears the grammatically correct Latin phrase “vivamus liberi ne America pereat.”"
8. Haupt, Angela (2020-11-18). "The most 2020 books of 2020". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-02. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "August: “Live Free or Die” By Sean Hannity. The rush of Trump books — basically its own genre this year — continued with this missive from the vociferous Fox host. Hannity offers a fervent defense of the president, and he outlines all the reasons he believes that the country would suffer if Americans elected a Democratic president in 2020."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Live Free Or Die to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 14:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SenzMate

AfDs for this article:

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

An article on an IT firm, which was soft-deleted a couple of months ago and then WP:REFUNDed on request of a new WP:SPA. I agree with Alpha3031's previous nomination rationale regarding the article references. Aside from the given sources, there is an Economy Next interview about the founders' AI aspirations "SenzMate: Enabling A Global AI-IoT revolution from out of Sri Lanka", 22 August 2022), which is effectively a primary piece insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a firm going about its business, marked by local awards, but I am not seeing evidence that it has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. AllyD (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. A smattering of industry awards isn't out of the ordinary for any business. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish the notability of this subject. HyperAccelerated (talk) 08:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few hours ago, after the original contributor account had been blocked, DACartman draftified this article citing the COI (which is discouraged during an AFD). Adamtt9 has subsequently moved it back; I will just add that in this case I don't see draftification as a suitable outcome; it seems not unlikely that it would return to mainspace and then more effort on a 3rd AFD. AllyD (talk) 08:44, 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 12:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LABA IT Training Center

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

Non-notable company. All sources are home pages of companies they've supposedly worked with, and I found no reliable sources online. Promotional in tone and borderline G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nepal. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NCORP. I've searched Google, No reliable sources. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing more than advertising. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: wholly promotional. . . Mean as custard (talk) 20:59, 7 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 European T20 Premier League#History. History is preserved if there is indeed material to add. Star Mississippi 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euro T20 Slam

The tournament is defunct without holding one season and in January 2025 it was replaced by the European T20 Premier League WP:GNG. Csknp (Talk) 14:57, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.It's already mentioned at European T20 Premier League, and nothing more is needed. Athel cb (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, Ireland, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with European T20 Premier League, the ties don't seem super strong, but it seems (at least according to this RTÉ article) that the new league - which doesn't have as much information is available on the Euro T20 Slam page - is a somewhat direct successor of Euro T20 Slam. While I don't think it's noteworthy to have a standalone page, it is noteworthy enough to be included in its successor page. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Epluribusunumyall. Vestrian24Bio 01:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European T20 Premier League#History. No merge is required as it is explained there already (and we don't need a detailed list of every cancellation at that article). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per @Joseph2302
Shrug02 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. These articles provide a shared history. No need to waste that. gidonb (talk) 00:20, 8 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. Owen× ☎ 09:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Dollar

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, only local coverage. Sahaib (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage, and is not recognized by a broader audience. --SimmeD (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any better sources than the two external links on the article, which are both local publications. Doesn't seem to meet GNG. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Owen× ☎ 09:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Da Serra–American conflict

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

Article appears to be about a diplomatic tension that literally never meaningfully existed outside the in context of “between these years, there was a diplomat from Portugal”. The title of the article was invented for Wikipedia by the author and there’s no indication of historical significance or interest in this topic that warrants an entire article, and this is the third in a recent string of articles from this author with these problems. See also Portuguese Newfoundland and Luso–Danish expedition to North America or the Pining expedition and the associated AfDs for both. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already addressed the title issue on the talk page. Regarding notability, I believe the topic has merit, as it directly contributed to tensions leading to the attacks on Portuguese vessels and resulted in a U.S. Congressional Act to address these issues. I do believe it has its own historical significance, especially in the context of U.S. foreign policy.

Ultimately, I’ll leave it for discussion. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Da Serra–American conflict" only returns this AfD discussion and the article itself. I struggle to see how this passes WP:GNG and even the article doesn't highlight a conflict, just that diplomacy was taking place. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Portugal, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everybody and their friend Kitara in 2025 knows that we have never published original research. Talking about "merit" and "significance" are irrelevant if it's never been discussed anywhere in any other context. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:OR. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:32, 10 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!} 07:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dotun Ajegbile

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

Fails WP:GNG and significant coverage cannot be established.
source 1 is a puff and promotional piece and part of the source farming explained in source 2.
Source 2 is part of the source farming of puff and promotional pieces published in the month of November. You can check this, this, this and this that did nothing than to praise him with different unverified claims.
source 3 is a LinkedIn post.
source 4 another puff piece. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Games, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely nothing makes this pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG; problem on ilc issue. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please find time to read WP:GNG, WP:N and WP:SNG and ensure that future articles meet one or more of the criteria stated there. Shoerack (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much PROMO for a non-notable individual, puff pieces and the usual flowery language seen in Nigerian media. Nothing found for this individual we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That guy is one of the pioneers of SPORTS BETTING BUSINESS in Nigeria. The history of sports betting in Nigeria can't be written without mentioning his name. Too bad you don't know him. Infact I WILL NEVER MAKE ANY ARTICE ON WIKIPEDIA ANY LONGER, it's just waste of efforts. WHAT PROMOTION IS WIKIPEDIA DOING FOR SOMEONE WHOSE BUSINESS IS IN NIGERIA AND EXTENDED TO GHANA? As far as im concerned, (Personal attack removed), EFFORST ARE NEVER RECOGNISED. too bad. Akowe1975 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, please do not insult us. We tend to discount anything said in that case. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
user appears to have been blocked regardless Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and likely COI. Watchlisted. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not have sufficient secondary sources WP:SOURCES to prove notability for WP:BIO. The WP:BURDEN has not been met here. Furthermore, the main contributor's talk page User_talk:Akowe1975 reads like that of a vandal. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If every page here you write is filled with sources like LinkedIn and red linked websites that nobody's heard of, then you don't know how to cite properly. If every AfD about said page is filled with defenses such as written above, then you are just going through the phases of grief experienced by many a spammer. In 2025, everyone knows that we are not a free marketing service. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 07:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betland

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 1 source is WP:GNG worthy. A WP: Before also revealed nothing than source farming of puff pieces. this, this, this and this were published in the same month and did nothing than to praise the owner with unverified claims. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NPA -1ctinus📝🗨 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, delete it. ONLY YOU nominated all my articles, why did you omit the ones I wrote on journalism in Nigeria? please add it and delete that too. you are enemy of progress. I have nothing to gain or earn writing articles for Wikipedia. It's out of share love for reading and writing. Your malicious intents to discourage me and prospective writers is noted. you can go ahead in your evil enterprise. delete the article, there is no trophy to be won in writing articles on Wikipedia. I have nothing to gain, so please your evil conscience, delete it. Akowe1975 (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NCORP as references do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. However, I believe this can be speedy closed as creator is agreeing to deletion per their statement above. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Simply fails WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:56, 10 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 Markus Persson. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor

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

Suggest deletion, WP:DRAFTIFY or WP:MERGE under Minecraft, Minecraft (franchise) or Markus Persson as WP:ATD. Basically this is far WP:TOOSOON for a hypothetical game where coverage exists only in respect of some tweets made by Persson that he might make a follow-up. WP:GNG can't apply to something that doesn't exist and hasn't actually been announced and all information is coming from a single primary source. Some secondary sources are reporting on it and speculating what it might mean, but until there are details, this is in substance only information about what Persson is thinking. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever limited information exists for the meantime. This article is basically describing a handful of related events; it's hardly a good foundation for a proper article even when/if this does achieve notability. Anonymous 06:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge to Markus Persson. This is such an apparent case of WP:TOOSOON that this could be an example listed on the TOOSOON policy page. λ NegativeMP1 07:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to tempt the outcome of discussion, but if there is consensus, perhaps it would be worth placing something like Pre-announcement coverage, such as about a developer revealing work on a game is planned or underway, is not sufficient information to support an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I notice there's no VG specific guidance. Maybe that is something to think about. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, allow me to clarify: I was saying that as a hyperbole of how extreme of a TOOSOON case I think this is. I'm not actually proposing the idea of listing this as an example on the page, nor am I making any legitimate predictions regarding this discussions outcome. λ NegativeMP1 09:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! No worries, apologies for misunderstanding. I take things a bit too literally. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL, I don't even see the use of a redirect from such an ambiguous title. At this point it's essentially just a claim without real substance or even a legal basis to make it (or at least refer to it as Minecraft 2). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Obviously not notable yet. It's a proposal, and sure it is interesting, but only if the proposed game actually becomes a thing. Until further steps are taken, there is no reason it couldn't be summarised on Markus Persson. The fact that the title of this article is so vague and borderline meaningless, says a lot about how early it is. Gust Justice (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question Are there any examples of a standalone article for a merely proposed game/movie/show? Kevinishere15 (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.

Proposed games: Earthworm Jim 4, Fortress (cancelled video game), Thrill Kill.

Proposed films: Akira (planned film), Easy Come, Easy Go (unfinished film), Grass Roots (film)

Proposed shows: Coming to America (TV pilot), The Prodigy (TV series), Hieroglyph (TV series). Strugglehouse (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased media can be the subject of an article when significant coverage can provide reliable background about what is being discussed. The issue here is that there is no subject; the subject matter, being the idea Persson had to maybe make a Minecraft successor, is by nature only supported by coverage of speculation based on some tweets. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not the same at all. They accumulated years and years of continued coverage. This was simply a vague poll/social media post made a day or two ago. Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there's enough coverage at this point to make an individual article worth it. There are many other examples of articles that are just "proposed" ideas. This game will have a lot more coverage as it develops. ~~{{{1}}}~~ Merge to Markus Persson. He doesn't even plan to make the game anymore. Strugglehouse (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"It will have coverage someday" is not an excuse to create an article now. See WP:CRYSTAL. An article based on tweets describing an idea is as WP:TOOSOON as it gets. Delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It already has tons of coverage. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MERGEREASON. It violates most points. Sergecross73 msg me 14:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't too short nor does it duplicate another article. There exits lots of coverage already on it, so it's definitely notable. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the article short, but it's crazy bloated out with fluff and filler content. Like half of it is just general background for Minecraft or Notch. And a good chunk of it repeats itself with an overly long intro. You could condense the actual meat about the actual subject down to about two sentences. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (keep redirect, I suppose). Fails WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LASTING. This game doesn't exist. Not even an in-the-works project. It's entire existence is literally a tweet. There isn't even a hint of WP:GNG. The sources are just sensationalized garbage churnalism at this point. — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 13:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Persson's page. If this was something that had been discussed for many years with various notes on development throughout, then maybe there could be an article, but he just started talking about this yesterday, and only hypothesizing it. Absolutely no need for a standalone at this point. --Masem (t) 13:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per most points at WP:MERGEREASON, and WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Incredibly WP:CRYSTAL and 'spiritual successor' is an uncitable value judgement in itself, and the statement that he can make an exact copy of the game is also not cited at all. Nate • (chatter) 21:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:TOOSOON. There's absolutely no proof of development, and the decision for it to be a Minecraft spiritual successor was literally decided by a Twitter poll. RadoGaming7 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge or just re-direct~~.Delete Per everyone else. Especially WP:CRYSTAL. It is not inevitable that this will get more coverage in the future. Knowing Notch's history, there is a very real chance he'll be bored of it by this time next week. ApLundell (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, Looks like exactly that happened. Maybe I do have a crystal ball. Changing my !vote to delete. ApLundell (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Normally I'm in the "don't rush to delete" camp, but this is a clear "don't rush to create" situation. All we know is that, a few days ago, the original creator of Minecraft tweeted that he's been in the mood to work on some games lately and did a Twitter poll in which his followers voted for an option labeled "make minecraft 2 boomer". I can understand why this would generate a lot of hype, but there's just nothing to write an article about. As for merging/redirecting, I'm leaning towards a weak oppose. "Untitled Minecraft spiritual successor" is a very lengthy and unusual title; it's hard to imagine many people would think to type that. The most I'd merge is just a single sentence mentioning that Persson has expressed interest in creating a game similar to Minecraft with a few sources attached. But the Markus Persson page already has exactly that, so I can't think of anything in this page that needs to be transferred to that page. Vanilla Wizard 💙 01:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Markus Persson as it's the only viable topic; Minecraft in its current form has very little to do with this so let's not give undue weight to it. Departure– (talk) 04:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Markus Persson. Clear example of WP:TOOSOON, wait until there's at least clear signs that development has actually started. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 06:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notch just announced he's not making it after all, further reason to reduce this to a mere mention on Notch's page. Jurta ^talk/_he/they 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above, Too Soon. Sharrdx (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, a bit too soon for this. Minikiwigeek2 (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notch has just abandoned the idea of developing a spiritual successor to Minecraft. Instead, he and his team (Bitshift Entertainment) will continue to develop Levers and Chests, the roguelike game they have been working on since early 2024. Max1298 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes it even more of a textbook example of why we have things like WP:TOOSOON. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Saying what he did on a Saturday and coming online Monday morning to a detailed email from MS legal? I didn't see that coming (sarcastically said). Nate • (chatter) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as compromise. The developer's comments can be covered at an article about them. Comments aren't a game. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for a game and this doesn't pass WP:CRYSTAL. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the announcement that the game isn't happening. A brief idea of doing something isn't equivalent to notability. Unopposed to it being added as a footnote to his bio but that's about it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, delete as last case scenario. This could be just be on Markus Persson's page Flushedwtf (talk) 09:36, 11 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 List of DC Universe locations#Hell. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hell (DC Comics)

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

Non-notable fictional location. News, Books, and Scholar turned up nothing about specifically DC's version of Hell, and the current article seems to be a nasty case of OR and SYNTH, since it combines many different interpretations of Hell from across DC canons into one article when they're unrelated to each other entirely, even in-universe. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find reliable sources that treat hell as a concept that is distinct to these comics. Can't build an encyclopedic article without WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no sources that I can find that would indicate the the specific depiction of Hell featured in DC Comics passes the WP:GNG. The references being used to create this article are a mess of primary and unreliable sources, and as pointed out by the nom, the content of the article appears to be heavily built upon WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with its section at List of DC Universe locations in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, preferable to hard deletion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DC Universe locations#Hell in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Sadly, this is lacking secondary sources, but those do exist, like the discussion in Hell and Its Afterlife, which seems to focus mostly on the Vertigo incarnation. A merge to a parent topic voids the question if there is a WP:SYNTH and notability problem or not by letting us discuss all versions such as they are next to each other. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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!} 04:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Good

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

Non-notable figure skater. She won a gold medal at the 2010 Danish Championships, but there were only two teams competing, and other that that, <crickets>. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Denmark, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG through multiple searches. The corresponding wikis have even less sourcing than the English article. Let'srun (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot find any significant coverage.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:28, 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.

Withdrawn by nominator based on on sources found by ARandomName123. ‎. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Levesque

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

At present, I'm having trouble finding sources to establish notability per NAUTHOR. A general Google search doesn't bring up useful information about the author, and I'm unable to find reviews in common sources, including Booklist, Publishers Weekly, and Kirkus. After checking the author's website, I searched for each book and couldn't find reviews; some didn't even appear indexed on Google Books. The one linked source in the article ([18]) comes off as very promotional, including referring to Levesque as "critically acclaimed". Either I'm missing something, or this is fluff. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Canada. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a couple paragraphs of coverage in Gale's Contemporary Authors (here). Waiting for Aquarius has been reviewed in Books in Canada (here), The Globe and Mail (here) and awarded the Stephen Leacock Memorial Medal for Humour, while Stranded on the Information Highway was also reviewed in The Globe and Mail (here) and the Star-Phoenix (here). There are also a couple of reviews for the other few books. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you find the article very promotional is because it is a news release from the association giving him the award/title. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I believe that Mr. Levesque is the only Leacock Medal winner without a Wikipedia page. His most celebrated work and profile came as a journalist in the early 1990s. I would hope it can be kept. Thanks Dick Bourgeois-Doyle (talk) 12:07, 5 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!} 04:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Twete

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. No senior-level competitions of any kind. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Denmark. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject appears to lack the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage to be found.
Shrug02 (talk) 22:59, 7 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!} 04:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Halstyan

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

Another Chernihiv player who appears to fail WP:GNG. Several searches in English and Ukrainian brought up nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV, and all the sources in the article are passing or database. Anwegmann (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite 48 appearances in the lower professional leagues of Ukraine, I can't find any SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Playing a few minutes, whether at top or low level, is still a weak claim to notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - has anyone tried searching for results by his name in Armenian? Translation gave me this: Էդուարդ Հալստյան. Google search provided around 440 results. If anyone finds a greater amount of WP:N within this search then I'd slightly lean to Keep and improve. Archives908 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using that name, I can find some decent coverage of Eduard Spertsyan but nothing about Halstyan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Didn't find any SIGCOV for GNG. CNC (talk) 21:06, 7 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!} 04:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Veresotskyi

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

Likewise, this player brings up nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV in English or Ukrainian. Everything is databases or local—and even in the latter, as far as I can find, there is nothing meaningful. Fails WP:GNG, as far as I can tell. Anwegmann (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't have any SIGCOV that I can see. I found a squad list mention in Sport Arena but nothing better. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found no coverage for GNG. CNC (talk) 21:05, 7 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!} 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy Lakeyenko

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

Like with others, nothing meaningful came up in either English or Ukrainian searches, much less anything that hinted at WP:SIGCOV. As such, this player fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the nominator. I can find a few bits of match coverage and some 'Team of the Week' stuff but nothing that merits an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found nothing notable for GNG. CNC (talk) 21:04, 7 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!} 04:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wassertorplatz

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

Fails GNG for not having SIGCOV from an Independent, reliable source for verification. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the area is clearly referenced in a number of scholarly publications and books, I'm not sure why verification is even an issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the Kreuzberger Chronik article is independent and meets GNG with significant coverage of the neighbourhood. Though, I think it would be better to have a more reliable reference- if there are in fact a number of scholar publications and books as others have commented. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 03:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is tagged appropriately but does not need to be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 due to the numbers, however leaning keep as the source assessment provided by Cunard satisfies NCORP. (non-admin closure) SK2242 (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August Capital

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues. Was previously deleted per AFD. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 03:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NORG and WP:SIRS). QEnigma talk 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tons of coverage that goes back to before the millennium. There's more than a dozen articles in the Wall Steet Journal which detail deals made: [19], [20], [21]. There's New York Times coverage as well: [22], [23], [24], [25]. Plenty more sources out there. This is just from a few minutes search. Thriley (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CORPDEPTH. These are funding announcements (1+2+4+5), brief hiring news (3) and a brief mention (6+7). These would be considered routine trivial coverage. Could be just regurgitation of press releases. No considered in depth enough to fulfill WP:ORGCRIT. The requirements for WP:NCORP are a lot more stringent now and simply having a bit of coverage is not enough to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 06:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you really spend more than a few minutes looking into potential sourcing? Thriley (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the type of coverage that is expected for a firm like this one. It demonstrates that billions of dollars has passed through it over the last 30 years. Thriley (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: You added a source from Fortune to the article . Are you seeing the widespread coverage I am seeing? Thriley (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While a firm with a large AUM is expected to be notable, it is the independent in-depth sources that determine notability per WP:NCORP. Just saying an investment firm has raised XXX amount alone is considered routine since they all need to do that since how else are they going to get money to invest? Speaking of AUM, August Capital has supposedly $1.3B to $2B AUM. Meanwhile BOND has $6B AUM and Accel-KKR has over $20B AUM and they both got deleted. Imcdc Contact 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a source assessment, especially of newly found sources, would be helpful as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources listed provide only routine coverage, including the one from the Wall Street Journal. Aona1212 (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Fund, Bret R.; Pollock, Timothy G.; Baker, Ted; Wowak, Adam J. (2008). "Who's the New Kid? The Process of Developing Centrality in Venture Capitalist Deal Networks". In Baum, Joel A. C.; Rowley, Timothy J. (eds.). Network Strategy. Advances in Strategic Management. Vol. 25. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 563–593. doi:10.1016/S0742-3322(08)25016-3. ISBN 978-0-7623-1442-3. ISSN 0742-3322. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The book notes on page 566: "We then introduce our process model of centrality achievement and summarize the history and evolution of two venture capital firms – Benchmark Capital and August Capital – to illustrate the elements and relationships in our model."
  The book notes on page 574: "August Capital (August) was founded by partners David Marquardt and John Johnston, two former partners of TVI whose early stage investment experience prior to founding August included investments in Microsoft, Adaptec, Compaq, Sun Microsystems, Seagate, Intuit, Sybase, Visio, Actel, and ViewLogic. David Marquardt is a prominent and high-status member of the VC community; he was a co-founder of TVI and the lead VC for the Microsoft deal. To this day he continues to serve on Microsoft’s board."
  The book notes on pages 574–575: "In the simplest terms, August seemed to take its time, moving at a very deliberate pace. In the several months following the close of its inaugural fund, August made only one small investment for about $1 million (representing approximately 1% of its total fund). Our reading of a variety of contemporary descriptions of August’s behavior and our examination of their investment behavior suggests the self-confident manner of a ‘‘master of the universe’’ that felt little urgency or compulsion to hurry in making investments and putting the new firm on the map."
  The book notes on page 572: "As the two firms entered their second year, August continued its more conservative approach and made no additional investments in the first three months of 1996. It appeared, rather, that the August partners continued to work with ventures they knew from their TVI days but in which August had not yet made investments. Finally, in April of 1996, August invested along with six other VC firms in Be, Inc., a company that TVI originally funded in 1992."
  The book notes on page 584: "August’s first two funds (with a combined total of $300 million) were fully invested in 34 companies by 1999. Overall, August invested in 44 companies from 1995 to 2000 with an average investment of $6.8 million. Among these companies were big names such as Epinions.com, Cobalt Networks, and Be, Inc. As Fig. 5 shows, during our period of study seven of August’s investments underwent initial public offerings (IPOs). The median return for the seven firms that August took public was 585%. Their two most successful IPOs during this period were Cobalt Networks and Silicon Image. August’s investment of $10 million in Cobalt Networks was worth $336 million at the end of the day Cobalt went public – a 3,360% return. Silicon Image was similarly successful; August’s $8.3 million investment in this firm was worth $119 million after the first day of trading, generating a 1,444% return."
2. Primack, Dan (2019-01-02). "A look inside the trouble at Silicon Valley's August Capital". Axios. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes: "Silicon Valley venture firm August Capital held its annual holiday dinner on Dec. 6. The mood was festive, not only because of the season, but also because August had recently held a first close on its eighth fund after an unusually arduous process. Four days later, the firm effectively imploded. ... Background: August Capital was founded in 1995 by investors who had written some of the earliest checks for tech icons like Microsoft and Compaq. ... August was so successful for so long that it never really had to fundraise in the traditional sense. Instead, it could just send out an email to investors and hold a quick close. But that changed in 2018 with its efforts to secure $250 million for Fund VIII. Some LPs were still upset with how fees were handled on August's under-performing sixth fund, while others were curious about partnership stability given that two longtime GPs (Howard Hartenbaum and Vivek Mehra) were out and 2 newer GPs (Tripp Jones and Villi Iltchev) were in."
3. Roberts, Bill (May 2000). "The chip-friendly VCs". Electronic Business. Vol. 26, no. 5. Reed Business Information. pp. 72–82. ProQuest 194235753.
  The article notes: "August Capital may be the best kept secret in Silicon Valley. It was cofounded in August (hence the name) 1995 by Marquardt, a Silicon Valley legend and the only VC who invested in Microsoft Corp. 19 years ago. It now has three funds totaling nearly $700 million, with more than $1.5 billion in assets under management. ... Rappaport joined the firm in 1996. The other general partners are John Johnston, the other cofounder and a former partner at Technology Venture Investors (TVI), also in Menlo Park, and Andrew Anker, who was co-founder and CEO of Wired Digital Inc., San Francisco, a news and media organization that launched the first advertising Web site. Mark Wilson, administrative partner, and Won Chung, research partner, round out the senior team.August Capital thrives on early stage funding, preferably as lead investor, in companies like Genoa that seek to fundamentally change their industry. ... August Capital's only disaster was DigiCash, which was developing infrastructure for electronic payments over the Internet. ... It entered Chapter 11 in late 1998 and emerged in 1999 as eCash Technologies Inc., Seattle."
4. Primack, Dan (2014-09-26). "Exclusive: August Capital leaving "opportunity" on the table". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05.
  The article notes about "“opportunities funds": "But Fortune has learned that one of the practice’s originators, August Capital, is going in the other direction. Back in 2000, August took advantage of an opportunity to participate in a $2 billion buyout for hard-drive maker Seagate. The only problem was that its commitment took up around one-third of its fund, which is an exceptionally high percentage. So August later decided to begin raising $250 million side vehicles to handle such deals, and has done so for each of its last three fundraises (no fees are charged on the side-funds until capital is called). But when August returns to market later this year to raise its sixth fund, there will be no sidecar."
5. Garland, Russ (March 2015). "VC Profile: August Capital Shifts to Single-Fund Model to Maintain Its Focus on Value Investing". Private Equity Analyst. Archived from the original on 2025-01-05. Retrieved 2025-01-05 – via ProQuest.
  The article notes: "Although some venture firms have turned to side funds to make large, growth-oriented investments, August Capital has gone in the opposite direction.The early-stage venture firm, which participated in the 2000 buyout of Seagate Technology LLC, had raised a special opportunity fund as a companion to each of its prior three funds. With its latest, $450 million pool, however, it returned to a single-fund approach. ... The Seagate investment was the catalyst for August's first special opportunity fund. That deal wasn't a natural for what is primarily an early-stage venture firm."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow August Capital to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; meets WP:NCORP via the sources identified by Cunard. Another source is this 3000+ word profile:

Rao, Leena (2014-06-14). "Sand Hill Road's Consiglieres: August Capital". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2025-01-05.

Jfire (talk) 21:12, 5 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 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!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [26] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [27] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the result of the first discussion was soft delete means if some one want to work on it he can make an un deletion request. It was deleted back in 2020 and so far its notability has improved considerably. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source review would be helpful as, at this point, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Based on my views, none of the sources qualifies for WP:INDEPTH coverage. Most are routine coverage of controversies about fake degrees, non-recognition, and other incidents, and they are not qualified for WP:NSCHOOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As previously stated, notorious diploma mill. It is notable due to its notoriety as a "school" as indicated by the coverage on it, rather than as school per se like UCLA for example. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:25, 7 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 virus genera. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of virus species

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

Potential violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY or WP:NOTDATABASE. The article is extremely long and continually loses utility as more virus species adopt binomial nomenclature. Updating the article has become infeasible due to the massive number of species. A similar discussion was held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mammal species and was resolved by redirecting to the genus article, but the article List of virus genera has most of the same issues as this one. A past discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of viruses voted to keep this article but the circumstances surrounding the article have greatly devalued the worth of this list since then. Velayinosu (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Velayinosu (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of virus genera, as we did with mammal species. I don't buy that virus genera is too unwieldy, it's not that long. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of virus genera; this is exactly parallel to the List of mammal species case, only worse in practice (as the number of virus species is presumed to be much larger). There's no benefit in an alphabetical omnibus list when we have rationally organized sub-lists. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List of virus genera is just as useless. Graham Beards (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of virus genera as mentioned above, I don't see the need to delete it. --SimmeD (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of virus genera; we should wait and see if improvements can be made to the one for genera (like in List of mammal genera), but if it seems that it is also becoming useless, it can be deleted in another AfD. _>>> Webclo^udd@their-talk-page 04:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This list is not needed. Having the List of virus genera is definitely a better approach. My very best wishes (talk) 02:34, 7 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. I see no point in an additional relisting. Right now, there are a lot of suggestions floating around but no consensus directing a specific closure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of feudalism

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

This seems to be a WP:CONTENTFORK of feudalism, with seemlingly randomly chosen case studies (WP:INDISCRIMIANTE), haphazardly grouped (particularly considering the weirdly named section "Modern traces" which seems to be "random stuff that did not fit into the two other sections"). There is no need for such an article to exist; at best it can be redirected/merged to the parent article (WP:ATD-R, WP:ATD-M). The main article on feudalism is actually not too long, and is missing a 'by country' overview, which seems to be the way this organized, so merge might be best. If kept as a separate article (but why?), this needs to be renamed, although I am not sure how (Feudalism by country?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was somewhat astonished upon checking the revision history statistics to find myself top editor by character count, despite having edited only one section over the summer (and probably due to the citations I added). This article already seems like it was split off from Feudalism as a daughter article, which I think it sort of might have been?
I think the main problem here (this topic) is that feudalism is a term with a specific technical meaning, but its meaning has been broadened over the years to apply to a number of systems of territorial administration that are not technically feudal, but where the feudalism label can act as a useful heuristic. The main article doesn't do a great job differentiating what feudalism ism and isn'tm, and the article under discussion here serves that purpose, as well as hosting a bunch of hatnotes that would probably otherwise end up in a list article somewhere or in Feudalism#See also.
I'm not 100% on straight merging into Feudalism: I think the examples of legit, consensus feudal societies could be worked into the main article, but without counterexamples of not-quite-feudal societies (which don't really belong in the main article), it will act as a magnet for that stuff. I'm real big on the concept of excellent list articles (like Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway), which I propose at every major notability discussion about our surfeit of microstubs (like WP:LUGSTUBS et seq.), and this article has the potential to become a great list article. It almost is, except for the title and structure. I also recognise I absolutely will not have the time to restructure it into an excellent list article unless this discussion is relisted at least four times. So I could see any of the following actions: retitle, partial merge, complete merge, temporary redirect until it can be sorted out, or keep.
For now, Folly Mox (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is No consensus here at all, just a multitude of suggestions. User:Folly Mox do you have one outcome that seems primary to you?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right I'm supposed to follow up on this! I think the optimal outcome is a good list, maybe titled "Feudal and semifeudal political systems in world history" or something more concise, with or without a leading "List of".

As foretold, I have not had the time to work on this. Maybe in the interim we can draftify the article as written, and temporarily redirect the title to Feudalism till it gets cleaned up?? Or toss a {{listify}} template at the top, move to a new title, and leave in mainspace for improvement?? I'm sorry I'm not more decisive here: as mentioned, I only really edited this article in one period several months ago. I was expecting more participation. Folly Mox (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Possible outcomes suggested are Deletion, Merge, Redirect or Draftify. We need more participants to weigh in here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - lots of sources exist to write an article about examples of feudalism. The current page appears to be poorly written and contain a significant amount of personal opinion but it seems undeniable that the topic would be notable. I don't really see why there is a problem with forking the main page and allowing this one to develop. JMWt (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another "Examples Of" article, which is not a valid encyclopedic topic. We have an article on Feudalism, we have articles on the individual historical situations covered, this is not a raw list — leaving this a content fork. Carrite (talk) 23:43, 10 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 Tanganya virus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanganya orthohantavirus

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

The format "name orthohantavirus" is an obsolete taxonomic naming convention that was replaced with binomial nomenclature. Tanganya virus has never been recognized as a species[28] and is still unclassified,[29] so it has never had the name "Tanganya orthohantavirus". PubMed search for Tanganya virus[30] versus Tanganya orthohantavirus.[31] An article already exists for Tanganya virus and I have already merged all of the information on "Tanganya orthohantavirus" into "Tanganya virus". Velayinosu (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Organisms. Velayinosu (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus. All the information can be suitably presented there, there is no reason for this extra article on a "putative" species that was never formally described. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus. The phrase "Tanganya orthohantavirus" appears in doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00438 which was published 26 August 2020. This Wikipedia article was created on 1 December 2020. I would be inclined to favor deletion as a Wikipedia neologism if there were no uses of the term prior to the creation of the Wikipedia article, but that is not the case. Plantdrew (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus: Refer to the same virus, it's just a naming precision and context of use. --SimmeD (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tanganya virus: as per the above. I created this stub and as all information is at the other page this is an appropriate redirect. JHCaufield - talk - 17:01, 7 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. Given the canvassing issue, I cannot simply close this as keep. The process appears to have been tainted. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Luca Guadagnino – similar to my !vote at the AfD for David Ayer's unrealized projects, these types of projects can be covered better within the context of the filmmaker's entire career (see WP:PAGEDECIDE). Some of these projects are fairly trivial and could be cut, but that can be resolved through normal editing and discussion processes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of projects is too vast to merge. And too many of them are "of note" to warrant "cutting" as you suggested. As I've said before, this belief of "irrelevance" of these articles is just incorrect. I see no difference than if it were a career biography. In a career bio, bits and pieces of information are taken from various sources to sum up a person's career, and for an Unrealized Projects page, various pieces of information about films/projects that were unproduced are taken and compiled together. A career bio, should include information from that person's career, and ideally, if they're a filmmaker, have a note or background on every film they made. This is true of most articles. Every film is listed out and explained in order. So therefore, for a page which Unrealized Projects is the main subject, everything should be included that is KNOWN. Just as with a career biography ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page size of Luca Guadagnino is about 2500 words; this page is about 1500 words, which could easily be fit into that article (the general threshold to consider a WP:SIZESPLIT is somewhere around 6000 to 8000 words). And many of these sections could be trimmed; we don't need beat-by-beat details of the production history (actor announcements, writer announcements, etc.). For instance, there is as much coverage of Rio here as there is about Bones and All in the main biography, even though the former was just an announcement and the latter was a project he saw all of the way through. Hence why I feel this information could be incorporated into the main article about his career. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I feel there are so many that they warrant having their own page. Many and several of these projects have also been mentioned in MANY outside sources "as a group or set" and therefore satisfies WP:LISTN. Case in point. I'm just a broken record here at this point. No special reason for this article to be deleted. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article is written appropriately and the current definition of "unrealized" is quite vague. Deleting this article would also give the precedence for deleting dozens of other articles that have the same features, such as Martin Scorsese's Nils2088 (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nil2088 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. This list has been discussed “as a group or a set” at ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. The Film Creator (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that The Film Creator (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
I don't think those websites are referring to this page, they're referencing the projects independently. Wikipedia is not mentioned in either source. Rusted AutoParts 18:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The projects have been discussed as a group or set and published in articles, and are therefore worthy of having their own Wikipedia page. That was the entire point. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They literally said "This list"..... Even then, just talking about a failed project doesn't make the histroy of that project that important, unless the project is a long gestating one. Such as the production history for The Flash, or the development on the Akira live action remake. Rusted AutoParts 19:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As in, the actual projects featured on "this list". ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the expansion of my comment. Rusted AutoParts 19:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an opinion. More information could come into light in the future about each project. Some projects have loads of information, others do not. Just as career information in a career bio has an abundance of information, and others do not. This does not mean the others should not be included. Case in point. Since the projects are listed "as a group or set" in many, many, many other articles, the list passes WP:LISTN. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of Guadagnino's unrealized projects are tiny blurbs. The only ones that stand out as noteworthy are Find Me, maybe Scarface and Brideshead Revisited. Buddenbrooks, Lord of the Flies, Leading Men, Sgt. Rock and American Psycho are all projects he is still noted as working on, thus making them unapplicable to the page. Why is it pertinent to know that he was once attached to a film called Burial Rites in 2017, but nothing ever came of it? Why Swan Lake? Being a list doesn't inherently make it notable or necessary. We used to have a list of all the films granted permission to film during the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike, it was eventually removed because it wasn't noteworthy. Rusted AutoParts 19:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the last example you mentioned. I would agree with that removal, because the films were granted permission to be 'realized'. However I would pose the question if there is a section of all the projects that were officially cancelled and never picked back up again as result of the 2023 strike? That would be a section to warrant keeping/having. Again, I'm not sure how else to explain it, just like a filmmaker's career bio lists out the background of every film they worked on (no matter how little the film, compared to how big the film, or how little information there is on this subject, as opposed to the amount of information on the other), they should still all be included because it is apart of the director's career. The same is true of unmade films, if it was an idea they had and was mentioned in an article-list it, official offers-list it, a project they worked on for five years-list it, a one-off article mentioning a project they were attached to-list it, etc. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that @ZanderAlbatraz1145: is currently canvassing for votes. See here. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here as well. Rusted AutoParts 19:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again. 2 of the 3 messaged have voted inline with Zander. Rusted AutoParts 19:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverted my close and relisting per requests on my Talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since canvassing occurred here, I was hoping to see additional participation in this AFD since its closure was reverted but that hasn't happened yet. I'll try an additional relisting but any admin closer is welcome to close this discussion if they believe they see a consensus that is not unduly influenced by the canvassing. I realize that this AFD has been open for several weeks now but I think an appropriate closure is more important than a speedy one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have new information regarding this page; it passes WP:LISTN because a number of the projects in the page have been published in outside sources in which they are described "as a group or a set" such as ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. Additionally, I have also found this one and this one in which Guadagnino himself discusses a couple of his 'dream projects'/past projects, as well as this one which discusses them as prospective, as in 'recent', unproduced or not. He also discussed some of his past, present and possible future dream projects in this 2018 NY profile. It has also, while not 'official', has been a frequent topic of discussion in other forums such as this Reddit post in which they are broken down. Another reason why this topic is worthy of having it's own page, as it's being discussed amongst other groups separate from Wikipedia. This article also breaks a couple of them down, Separate Rooms and Scarface, and on and on... In this IndieWire article, Guadagnino is "especially" mentioned as being a notable director "whole filmographies of projects they started developing before eventually abandoning." ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I guess this circles back to my point – if one of his defining characteristics is that he takes on a lot of projects that he doesn't finish, why don't we discuss that in his main biography? Just because LISTN is met doesn't mean we have to create a bloated standalone list. And for the record, I'm still not convinced LISTN is met; some of the sources above are less mainstream and more WP:SPS, and the descriptions of Guadagnino being a director with many unfinished projects are often passing or trivial mentions within wider-ranging articles (which just shows these projects are best discussed in a fuller context). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we couldn't discuss it in his main biography as well, but that does not mean that a separate page detailing ALL OF HIS PROJECTS, in full detail, should not exist, (considered the amount of sources and published material and discussions of the topic that exist outside of Wikipedia). There are many examples of directors who have a small section detailing their unmade works on their main page, but still link to the larger page, for instance Stanley Kubrick#Unfinished and unrealized projects, John Hughes (filmmaker)#Unproduced screenplays, J. J. Abrams#Unrealized projects, and Tony Scott#Unrealised projects, to name a few. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another article in which several projects are mentioned, and with status update on each. This is reliable, since it directly engages with the subject (Guadagnino) in a Q&A interview. WP:LISTN requires two sources in order to be able to create a list for a page. This is more than plenty that I have listed, because the projects are described "as a group or set", and the page should be titled "Unrealized" because the projects are not made, therefore that is the only logical description that a page like this could have. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Luca Guadagnino, per RunningTiger123. All of the content here that can be merged into Luca Guadagnino after trimming and condensing sections. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ as the article passes WP:LISTN since these projects have been published in outside sources in which they are described "as a group or a set" such as ThePlaylist.net and The Film Experience. Additionally, I have also found this one and this one in which Guadagnino himself discusses a couple of his 'dream projects'/past projects, as well as this one which discusses them as prospective, as in 'recent', unproduced or not. He also discussed some of his past, present and possible future dream projects in this 2018 NY profile. It has also, while not 'official', has been a frequent topic of discussion in other forums such as this Reddit post in which they are broken down. Another reason why this topic is worthy of having it's own page, as it's being discussed amongst other groups separate from Wikipedia. This article also breaks a couple of them down, Separate Rooms and Scarface, and on and on... In this IndieWire article, Guadagnino is "especially" mentioned as being a notable director "whole filmographies of projects they started developing before eventually abandoning." ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not !vote multiple times. If you have more information, leave it as a comment only. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Under which should I leave it as a comment? ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Star Mississippi 00:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xylem Learning

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

This company does not meet WP:NCORP requirements. The sources are merely press releases and therefore, not independent as they fit the description listed at WP:NEWSORGINDIA and they do not provide the stringent sourcing required to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The rest of the coverage is WP:ROUTINE due to physicswallah investing in the company. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to resolve it United Blasters (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Technology, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Requesting you to not to delete the article. And inviting more editors. United Blasters (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and noting that this topic was declined at Draft:Xylem less than two months ago. The new mainspace attempt is word-for-word that older draftspace article, though then with additions, suggesting they are both based on an uncited original (which usually means COI) or one is based on the other without credit (which often means SOCK). DMacks (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. I'm closing this as Keep with the caveat that even the editors arguing that this article should be Kept (or who have brought sources to this discussion) acknowledge that this article needs some work. Whether that involves Merging content from this article into another article or vice versa can be hashed out on the article talk page. Please take the momentum from this AFD discussion and work on improving this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolis

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

This article has lots of references, but there is no definition of "metropolis", so it is essentially a discussion of the etymology and a prose list of some big cities. The etymology belongs on Wiktionary, not as a WP article. The list is far less useful than List of largest cities and the like, since there are no clear criteria for inclusion. There is no potential for the article to grow beyond this, because unlike mega city and megalopolis, there is no agreed definition for "metropolis"; it's just a synonym for "big city".

(Any deletion would probably involve merging or redirecting with Metropolis (disambiguation), which obviously should remain) Furius (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Economics, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This might be a case of WP:TNT but I don't think we will benefit much from deletion. Shankargb (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that once WP:TNT was complete there would simply be nothing left. What do you think would be the content of this page after clean up? Furius (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Metropolitan area. Agree with nom that there's no consistent definition and little substantive overview content, most of which is redudant to what's in the other article. Many of the country-by-country listings are pretty blah, just listing cities and populations with more prose than necessary. Reywas92^Talk 15:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not in good shape at the moment but the concept of a "metropolis" is trivially notable. Astaire (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it? This is like having an article on tome when we already have book. Furius (talk) 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Agree with @Reywas92 that the content is mostly redundant with metropolitan area Earlsofsandwich (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Metropolitan area, per Reywas92 and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of sources would be helpful at this point. Before taking action on this sizeable article, I'd like to see a stronger consensus and also hope we can get more participation from some longtime editors and AFD participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient scholarly study of the concept of "metropolis", distinct from "metropolitan area" or "large city" to meet WP:GNG and support a standalone article. Sources include:

Ritzer, George; Ryan, J. Michael (2011-01-25). "metropolis". The Concise Encyclopedia of Sociology. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 397–398. ISBN 978-1-4051-8352-9. (tertiary source showing the topic is covered by specialty encyclopedias; lists additional sources)
Williams, Ralph Olmsted (1890). "The Word "Metropolis" as Used in England and America". Our Dictionaries and Other English Language Topics. Henry Holt and Company. pp. 47–65. (detailed etymological history)
Farías, Ignacio; Stemmler, Susanne (2014-03-27), Brantz, Dorothee; Disko, Sasha; Wagner-Kyora, Georg (eds.), "Deconstructing "Metropolis": Critical Reflections on a European Concept", Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism, transcript Verlag, pp. 49–66, doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839420430.49/html, ISBN 978-3-8394-2043-0, retrieved 2025-01-05
Rodger, Richard (2014-03-27), Brantz, Dorothee; Disko, Sasha; Wagner-Kyora, Georg (eds.), "The Significance of the Metropolis", Thick Space: Approaches to Metropolitanism, transcript Verlag, pp. 85–104, doi:10.1515/transcript.9783839420430.85/pdf?licensetype=restricted, ISBN 978-3-8394-2043-0, retrieved 2025-01-05
Basaldua-Sun, Sophia Marguerite (2019-10-01). "Metro(Polis): Decentering Urbanity in Conceptualizing Metropolitanism". Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 102 (4): 345–370. doi:10.5325/soundings.102.4.0345. ISSN 0038-1861.
Cunningham, David (2005). "The concept of metropolis". University of Westminster.

Jfire (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is, please. This article by itself has 319 watchers. Also see Metropolis (disambiguation). And then there's the 155 watchers on Superman's home of Metropolis (comics). Too many possibilities for a merge of any two individual articles. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Keep as is[reply]
I don't think I've ever seen the number of watchers as a basis to keep an article. There's clearly substantial overlap between these two articles, as well as substantial fluff and non-specific content. Reywas92^Talk 01:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article probably needs a cleanup, but the metropolis is clearly a notable topic - see scholarly articles such as [32]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan area should probably be merged to this page instead of the other way around. Lots of duplication and cleanup needed for sure. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's definitely some editing which needs to be done. I think we'd probably need to lose the list entirely and refocus the idea based on scholarly articles. SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For instance this is a really interesting article. I may have a go at completely rewriting this. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 06:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with SportingFlyer above Asteramellus (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new "Concept" section to the article. I think we should remove the list of cities considered metropolises and continue working on this article from the angle of an academic concept. But it is absolutely notable... SportingFlyer T·C 17:36, 11 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.