Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

21 February 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 20	February 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Copernic Space

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sources are company press releases, recycled content, routine announcements on board appointments and sales. PitchBook isn't reliable, AMM source is just an interview, not independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crago (Alamanni)

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

I think the page Crago (Alamanni) should be deleted. It was created in 2006 and has remained a stub since then. It is an orphan, apart from a redirect and unsourced mention on the page for the German town of Creglingen. No reference has ever been provided for its one-sentence lead section. The only reference ever provided since 2006 is a brief, unsourced mention in a description of a Creglingen Walking Tour from a blog site, which is itself not a reliable source. On German Wikipedia, there is no equivalent page, and the article Creglingen does not mention Crago.

Outside of Wikipedia, the Creglingen town's website does not mention Crago. A Google Find search for Crago and Creglingen only gives a single, 1882, German mention, in Württembergische Vierteljahrshefte für Landesgeschichte, Volume 5 (1882), which does not support the Crago (Alamanni) page.

I propose this page should be deleted on the grounds that it cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources; that thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed to verify it; and that the subject fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines. Also, deletion of it from the redirect page and the Creglingen page. Masato.harada (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SVOX

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. No results from a before search except for some press releases. Contested PROD. Justi yaya 08:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Malodia

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject is a non-notable business coach and Youtuber who does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the articles are bylined, all are from Agencies and generic bylines. Taabii (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Taabii (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I fail to see any notability here. No relevant special notability guide is passed, and fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Puntland Star

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

The lack of notability and independent sources. Loewstisch (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 11:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TravelPerk

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

Promotinal routine coverage sources only about seed fund raising and similar event-based news. Not meeting NCORP Taking off shortly (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Travel and tourism, Germany, Spain, England, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject has enough significant coverage to meet Company's Notability standard. Found this [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5] Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have to disagree with the nom here. Looking at Bakhtar40's sources, the first two don't count for notability, since they are an interview (not independent or sigcov) and a short press release on a funding round (not independent or sigcov). However, the Expansion article, while paywalled, looks like sigcov to me, same for the TechCrunch article and the article in The Scotsman. I think these three are enough to meet the GNG/NCORP, so I haven't checked the other sources in the article, but there might be more there. Toadspike [Talk] 07:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS Link

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, making it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did OP look? Loads of local-language coverage as you might expect, such as Czech Radio [6] [7], Mafra [8] [9], Czech Television [10] [11]. C 679 14:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It would help if someone with the knowledge of Czech language could analysis whether the sources provided by Cloudz679 count toward significant coverage or not. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hedwig Tusar-Taxis

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO. She has achieved nothing in her life, so she does not deserve own encyclopedic entry. Being married to a notable person does not make her a notable person. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Article composed of various original research and does not demonstrate any notable achievements of the subject. C 679 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her first, notable, husband Vlastimil Tusar. PamD 09:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of her in two sources that are included in the article, one as Further reading [12], pages 375-376, and one in External links [13] (which is unfortunately not the actual article, but announces a "New series: Wives of our Prime Ministers" and says "You can find the full story of Vlastimil Tusar's two women in the magazine Pátek, the Friday supplement of Lidové noviny." I haven't yet tried to find the Friday supplement.) There is also SIGCOV in this article from the National Museum in Prague [14]. These sources are from 2004, 2010 and 2011, so she is clearly notable almost 100 years after she married Tusar. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an other very actual article from December 2024 published in the NÖN and listed as reference in the article on Hedwig Tusar-Taxis: Attempted murder 99 years ago. Bloody Christmas in the Hellerhof Paudorf. --Culturawiki (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per PamD is a good option. I don't understand how the sources listed above support notability. If there is such a thing, add it to the article. But, for example, the one from the National Museum only describes what she wore as the wife of the prime minister. The article in NÖN describes that she witnessed a crime, if I understand correctly. Even if it were WP:SIGCOV, remember that it is not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. FromCzech (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case for many wives of heads of state that articles about them focus on what they look like and what they wear (whether they achieve anything themselves or not). The WP article on Brigitte Macron says "Her style of dress at international meetings has often been commented upon." That seems to be what is considered notable about her (and the age difference between her and Macron .....) - and gets written about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ I now added criticism from the Vatican and attacks from National Socialists including an article about Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, in which Hedwig Tusar-Taxis (called Frau Tusar) is mentioned and attacked several times. Inter alia, she was accused of being a Jew and of having stolen jewels on a trip to Konopiště together with Alice Masaryková, president of the Red Cross. This should show political and social relevance. Culturawiki (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot vote twice. FromCzech (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that relisting means this is a new discussion. Culturawiki (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Jojo (Bengali singer)

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

no indication of notability. AgerJoy talk 09:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expect comments from volunteers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AgerJoy talk 06:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EngageMedia

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

10 of the 14 sources are its own website. Fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, Technology, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:NORG. AgerJoy talk 07:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pekara Maja

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

CSD13 was declined by an admin. This article serves only to promote a business and is supported by only two sources, one a company listing, another is a tourism blog in Bosnian listing various places of interest in the region. Fails under WP:NOTYELLOW and GNG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's reasoning could not be clearer or more valid. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nail knot

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

This was prodded with the rationale: "Knot techniques don't have any inherently notable qualities. I see that this particular one has been discussed in many blogs, forums, and other user-generated sources, but nothing approaching the quality needed to be used as a reference on Wikipedia." Deprodded because it is "a pretty well-known knot in fishing". That does not address the reason for prodding or explain why it meets GNG (the infamous Battle for Dream Island is presumably also "pretty well-known"). — Anonymous 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 03:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as someone who has little idea about knots even after having ilustrated more than 20 of wikipedias knots i have never seen the wikipedia page on individual knots as a "How to" but more as a reference, knots are named diferently in diferent countries and without an image or an explanation how are you suposed to compare them or understand them enough to know two names refer to same knot, when the author says well known, he means to say the name is coloquial and not official (as far as i understand it) and to be fair something not aproaching the level of quality you personaly think is needed for the wikipedia is no reason to remove it , quite the oposite is a reason to complete it and increase it. sometimes knowledge is not deep, and that doesnt make it less useful. i have recieved hundreds of mails over the years thanking me for this knot pages, from people of all corners of life and all corners of the world. Jusdt have a look how many other wikis link to the image to have an idea how many other nationalities consider this knot worthy of inclusion. and if so many people apreciate what they learned from the tiny wikipedia page i think that knowledge has its own value. seems a bit selfish on your part to just want to delete it becouse you think it is "too simple" so i oppose this removal. -LadyofHats (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this very passionate response explains why this article should be kept according to WP:GNG. Calling contributors selfish is not the best way to win disputes on this site. While I understand you have strong feelings for this page you created and would like to right great wrongs, GNG and WP:AGF still apply. — Anonymous 15:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It’s arguably one of the most important knots in fly fishing. Instead of deleting the page, editors could work on expanding it with better sources. Books on fly fishing, knot-tying manuals, and historical fishing texts almost certainly reference the nail knot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.206.5 (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these better sources? These types of comments are meaningless in deletion discussions. Before casting a keep vote, you need to find these better sources, if they indeed exist. This is an encyclopedia, not a how-to guide. I would imagine very few knots, no matter how "important" receive coverage warranting the creation of an encyclopedia article. You are more than welcome to include this type of content in a fishing blog or a site like wikiHow. — Anonymous 03:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I found these:
  - ^[1]
  - ^[2]
  - ^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.181.65.62 (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one, from a fishing magazine, seems like a very, very weak source, if it's even usable. Definitely not enough to establish notability by itself. As for the other two, one is a blog, and the other is a commercial site. Clearly, AI still has a long way to go when it comes to finding reliable sources. — Anonymous 16:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See this New York Times Article: ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.158.240 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:PASSING. Being merely mentioned by a reliable source is not necessarily an indicator of notability. — Anonymous 15:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

How does this knot differ than all the other knots on List of knots? There is precedent for similar pages.
- Boa knot
- Double fisherman's knot
- Grief knot
- and many many more
(Remember to sign your posts in discussions.) See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis; just because some subjects pertaining to a topic are notable does not mean that all are (although in this case, I wouldn't be surprised if these other knots do not meet WP:GNG either). — Anonymous 23:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. The article could be expanded, and it needs citations. Z. Patterson (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z. Patterson: Can you prove these statements? The comments in this discussion are honestly baffling; I don't think I've ever seen an AfD like this. Once again, if you're going to make these claims, you should actually demonstrate this alleged coverage. (I've already pointed out issues with the sources previously brought here.) I would have no issue with being proven wrong and discovering that this knot is indeed notable, but these repeated claims that this article deserves to be kept without providing valid evidence of notability are only serving to further convince me that it is not. — Anonymous 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@An anonymous username, not my real name: I performed an EBSCO search here. Also see Google Scholar's results here. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly better than anything else provided in the discussion, I will grant that. I'm still not sure what our policy is on the use of fishing guides as reliable sources. — Anonymous 02:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Outside of scholarly journal and book searches, I found sources such as Animated Knots, netknots, Orvis, and Fly Fishers International. I think they are WP:RELIABLE. Z. Patterson (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think they are. In this day and age, I can't imagine it's very difficult for anyone to start a website about knots. — Anonymous 02:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General nominator comment: While doing my best to assume good faith, I would like to add that there seems to be something fishy (pun not intended) going on with this discussion. Following a rather aggressive and adversarial comment from the creator of the article, this discussion has seen confusing and poorly justified keep arguments from three IPs with very little editing history (and later a somewhat better justified response from a user who does not seem to be a frequent participant at AfD). I rarely am one to assume the worst of our editors, but I think anyone presented with the same information would be unable to deny that something about this is more than a little weird. I really must doubt that this specific knot is just that popular. — Anonymous 02:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Field & Stream, April 1974 has about 34 sentences and six diagrams about the nail knot. Field & Stream, August 1974 has 16 sentences and 11 photographs of the nail knot. And then there are the books. The Field Guide to Fishing Knots has significant coverage of the nail knot. Fishing Knots: Proven to Work for Light Tackle and Fly Fishing has significant coverage of the nail knot. Fly-Fishing Knots has significant coverage of the nail knot. A classic book from my own library that I just held in my hands, The Curtis Creek Manifesto by Sheridan Anderson describes the knot with five diagrams on page 29. I see at least a dozen other books online that discuss the knot. As for the comments above from the nominator An anonymous username, not my real name who doubts the motivations of the editors arguing keep, I have been editing for over 15 years, have made over 110,000 edits and have participated in over 3600 AfD debates. This specific knot is that popular among fly fishermen although it has a reputation of being difficult to tie. And I am only a beginner fly fisherman at best. Cullen328 (talk) 10:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue accepting this keep vote, as you accompanied it with clear and unambiguous evidence. This is the first comment in this discussion that has actually convinced me of notability. — Anonymous 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli support for Hamas

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

This is not a significat topic of study or coverage. Much of the article is synthetically composed of material from sources unrelated to the article topic—which is not itself a reason for deletion, rather for revision, but from my research it appears that this is a reflection of the lack of significant coverage of this topic. Any relevant material not already there can be merged into History of Hamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Witwatersrand School of Architecture & Planning

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

I don't see why this school of a university needs its own article. All the sources from the university's website, so basically it's repeating information easily found on the web. It needs third party coverage which is lacking. Fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Brismée

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

I do not see any indication that they pass Wikipedia:NFILMMAKER. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. satisfies WP:GNG (several old books; unfortunately I can see only snippets, so I didnt use them in the article). As well as WP:NFILMMAKER: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work ~~or collective body of work.~~ In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" --Altenmann >talk 13:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Altenmann. Entry in Davay, P. (1973). Cinéma de Belgique. Duculot. (p. 80); Sojcher, F. (1999). La kermesse héroïque du cinéma belge: 1965-1988 : le miroir déformant des identités culturelles. Harmattan, p. 238 etc..... -Mushy Yank. 00:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems close to consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Runnings

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

No one source that points to notability. Does not match WP:GNG and WP:ORG Pollia (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. From what I see on Googling, they seem to get a lot of news coverage about burglary and shoplifting in their stores. Is this odd or a coincidence? Bearian (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen multiple news articles in which they show Runnings opening where former retailers such as Home of Economy were. I have also seen articles on the break-in. They have acquired R. P. Home & Harvest, which has a Wikipedia article as well. Billybob2002 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither of the keep votes given provide a legitimate rationale to keep this article per any criteria for notability. See WP:Notability is not inherited and WP:Routine coverage. Ping me if better sources turn up, but otherwise, I'm leaning to delete per nom. — Anonymous 22:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar (organization)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bosavi woolly rat

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

Never scientifically described, and thus fails WP:NSPECIES. Nothing more than passing coverage in a handful of scientific papers. Perhaps worth a brief mention on the genus article, but no more than that. I don't think it's a good idea to have articles about species based solely on preliminary news reporting, and the coverage isn't WP:SUSTAINED either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Science, and Organisms. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't? It seems to have made it into a few books in the years since. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Hausheer, Justine E. (2024-03-19). "Meet the Amazing Giant Rats of Oceania". The Nature Conservancy.

Fair enough, I stand somewhat corrected. I meant the current article which is still only sourced to the 2009 news coverage. Even still, I don't think we should have articles for undescribed species when they can be covered in the genus article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC

Actually I was confused. I thought this was in the journal Nature, but it's actually the website of The Nature Conservancy a nature conservation charity. I don't think this is significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG from the BBC, CNN and Smithsonian articles, and while it has no official name from taxonomists yet, I suspect that is simply because it was discovered so recently. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 21:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2009 is not so recently. Plenty of mammals have been discovered, named, published, and catalogued since then. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NSPECIES, without a described name, this is just a pipedream. I could see draftify as an WP:ATD and WP:TOOSOON. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While this is certainly worth mentioning at the genus article, I see no purpose in giving it a dedicated article until it has a name and/or a listing in a taxonomically reliable source such as the IUCN or ASM (although the latter would tend to imply the former). Until then, we don't even really have any good evidence that there's anything to report, rather than that somebody once thought that there might be. If that changes, we can revisit it then... until then, the genus article is the best place for this and any other unnamed species. Anaxial (talk) 05:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep on the basis that, while this fails WP:NSPECIES, we've got coverage from the Smithsonian[15], the Guardian[16], the Nature Conservancy[17], the BBC[18], CBC[19], etc, along with several mentions in scientific publications... You can argue that it's WP:TOOSOON, but with this level of coverage I have to disagree, and I don't see much use in deleting this article when all we are waiting on is a published description and an ICZN compliant name. This is the absolute best case scenario for an article on an undescribed species: reliably documented (clear photo and video evidence from a reputable source to support its existence) with good news coverage and a likely genus placement. NSPECIES should not be interpreted as putting a kibosh on all articles on species not yet described (that was clearly not the intention behind the guideline), but rather, as a reflection of the community practice of giving all described species the presumption of notability. At the absolute least, the information in this article should be preserved in the Mallomys article (though in my opinion this is not to the benefit of the Mallomys article, especially given that the placement in Mallomys is not yet confirmed). I just can't say I see any benefit to the encyclopedia in deleting this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if the generic placement was uncontroversial I'd agree with merging it to Mallomys, but with it unconfirmed I'm a very weak keep. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically all of the coverage is from the same few days in September 2009 though, over 15 years ago now. There's no evidence of WP:SUSTAINED coverage (charity websites don't count), required for having Wikipedia articles on a topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense that an animal that has only been seen once due to its prescence in a remote area will attract the vast majority of its detailed coverage in relation to that initial discovery, but there are later mentions of this animal. Hopefully these links work, I absolutely loathe trying to link pages on Google Books/the Internet Archive but it's the best I can do... Most recently, a 2025 memoir by Gordon Buchanan, one of the members of the documentary crew, discusses it[20], and it's also mentioned several times in one of Steve Backshall's books from 2011[21]. It's also discussed in this 2013 book on extinction published by the Natural History Museum[22], this 2019 book on the Smithsonian published by the University of Georgia[23], and extremely briefly in a 2022 book on live mammal trapping[24] and a 2011 book on zoo management published by Wiley[25]. This is just what I could find through my limited online research tools, I imagine there are things I've missed. In 2021 it appears someone even published a children's picture book based on it[26]! Not terribly relevant to notability, but an interesting thing I found during my research and wanted to share, I thought it was very cute :P

My point being that this is an animal that has recieved a decent amount of coverage even in the absence of further sightings. I imagine the difficult terrrain and remoteness of its habitat are major barriers that have prevented it being rediscovered and described. Again, I think this is the best case scenario for an organism known only from a single sighting, and I think dismissing it on the basis that it has yet to be described goes against the spirit of NSPECIES and does not benefit Wikipedia readers. This is encyclopedically valuable information on a species that will be automatically presumed notable the moment a description is published, and I would hate to see it removed entirely.

For what it's worth, I would be more than happy to expand the article based on the sources I've found (Backshall's book in particular provides a lot of detail on the expedition). An alternative proposal would be to redirect Bosavi woolly rat to an article on the expedition/documentary that documented this animal and broaden the scope to include not just this particular rat, but also the other undescribed species they documented and the "story" of how the expedition was conducted. I find this slightly preferable to redirecting and including information on this purported species at Mallomys, both on the basis that this placement is not confirmed and that I feel having an entire section on a single undescribed species in a genus article looks ugly and reads poorly. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect as you describe would probably be the best course of action, if such a destination existed. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus for it, and we can decide on an article title/focus (should it be named after/focused on the documentary, the expedition, or both?), I would be happy to move the page and expand it out. Just to be clear, my vote remains keep rather than merge, but if there is no consensus to keep I would prefer a merge as described in my previous comment over deletion/merge to Mallomys. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With no existing destination, "merge" gets thrown out. I think it's the best option, though. "Draftify as ATD" is the best action that would lead to the effect of merging to something non-existent, as that can be resolved in the draft. I understand your desire to keep, but if this were a draft, you'd have time and space to make it something better we can all agree to. (Well, more of us...) - UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging this into an article on the expedition would be better than having an article on a topic about which little meaningful can be written. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:GNG, which is explicitly mentioned as an exception in WP:NSPECIES, and which the article clearly meets having received significant coverage. Zackery the Fence (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ethmostigmus. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Mallomys. Wikigrund (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it meets WP:GNG quite clearly.cyclopia ^speak! 15:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, NSPECIES, and SUSTAINED. SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge/redirect (ATD) to either List of rodents discovered in the 2000s where it is listed, Lost Land of the Volcano#Discoveries, where it and the possible subspecies "Bosavi silky cuscus" are listed, or Mallomys. It would seem the "possible" species (2009 article) would have had a listing by now. The article DOES NOT PASS WP:GNG or NSPECIES The "established rules of scientific nomenclature" indicates that Kristofer Helgen, a biologist and curator of the Smithsonian Institution, or Muse Opiang a biologist with the Papua New Guinea Institute of Biological Research, apparently the co-discoverers, can (possibly did) tentatively name a new species. Apparently there has yet to be genetic analysis nor has the species been formally described (so undescribed), named, or name accepted, by a published scientific paper, so not officially recognized. It is an "undescribed putative species". All the current information is speculation, even supposition, so why create an article? After the initial discovery what has happened? 15+ years and still too soon. -- Otr500 (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire category dedicated to undescribed species; being undescribed does not mean being not notable. WP:NSPECIES says that described species are notable, but it does not say that undescribed species are not. Undescribed species fall under GNG, and given sourcing provided above by Ethmostigmus in the discussion this species seems notable. cyclopia ^speak! 21:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is kinda-sorta leaning keep, but I don't see much of a consensus here. Ethmostigmus, if you wanted to try a WP:HEY on this, that might help?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Buddha International Cricket Stadium

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

Lacks Notability. Redirect removed without significant development supported by independent reliable sources . Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – WP:TOOSOON, but there is something about the construction [27], [28], [29]. Svartner (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this was, as the article states, formerly known as Gautam Buddha International Cricket Stadium, isn't this a page move once the name changes? Until then deletion seems the best option - we could look at redirect but we'll eventually need a move over redirect going on if we do that... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Endrabcwizart (talk) 03:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: as it is now WP:TOOSOON. AgerJoy talk 07:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Park, Indiana

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

Here we come upon an impressive cock-up at USGS, because if you look at old enough topos to have any details, you will not see this label, but you will see an area just to the north labelled "Board Park". And if you look at the 2013 map, you'll see both "Board Park" and "Broad Park". So obviously the GNIS entry for the latter came from somewhere else besides the topos, and indeed it did: from an 1876 atlas. One has to wonder why nobody noticed that the two places are actually the same (and the "Board park" entry is still there in GNIS, though it is gone from the map), but it's clearly the case. And judging from our handy county history, the old atlas was right and the older topos were wrong, though it appears that the topo location is more accurate. After all that, though, it's still a nothingburger place: there's little there, and the history merely mentions it in passing to locate other places. It's likely just another turn of the century 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Greuner

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

Blatant autobiography and non-notable subject. Fails WP:ANYBIO. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 02:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptenothrix Species 3

AfDs for this article:

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

No published scientific name, and therefore fails WP:NSPECIES. This as well as Ptenothrix species 4 are ecomorphs that have been identified by the springtail hobbyist community but are as of yet unpublished in a scientific journal. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ptenothrix - see also Ptenothrix species 4 deletion discussion. To my knowledge, these purported species have received no media or academic coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPECIES. They have been identified as distinct, but there is simply no published work on them with which to establish notability nor build a Wikipedia article. Seems that researchers are working on formal descriptions for these, hopefully to be published soon, but until we get a published description or WP:SIGCOV this ought to redirect to the genus article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Play! Pokémon

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

A division of the Pokémon Company that doesn't seem to be separately notable. I've been researching competitive Pokémon extensively and have searched this subject several times and found very little discussing them, even in passing mention. Nearly everything they do is already covered extensively at Pokémon World Championships as they act primarily as that event's organizers, and their organization of local events isn't covered at all from what I can find, bar one Inverse source discussing the role of "Pokémon Professors", which doesn't even mention Play! Pokémon at all. What little that is sourced in the article either hails from PRIMARY sources or unreliable ones, bar three sources, which are either ROUTINE coverage or TRIVIALMENTIONS, and what little mentions I could find on this topic do not seem to be enough to establish anything other than that the company exists and nothing more. Due to a lack of SIGCOV and the existence of only ROUTINE coverage or TRIVIALMENTIONS, it fails WP:NCOMPANY. I would argue for a Redirect to the World Championships, seeing as that article covers the bulk of what is in this one already while also acting as an associated topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aurora, Illinois mayoral election

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

Falls below Wikipedia’s notability standards. At this point, it’s a routine election that could be adequately covered within the incumbent mayor (Irvin)’s article.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Aurora mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit and perennial notability. Certainly, elections in Aurora COULD have factors that allow it to reach such note. But at this point: there are no factors that make this particular Aurora mayoral election independent notable. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Alton mayoral election

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

Falls well below Wikipedia’s notability standards.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Alton mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit notability. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of the Capture of Vrnograč article which has recently been improved to include all the fighting that led up to the capture of that town, including this town. There is insufficient material in reliable sources to justify two articles in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Grey, Fitzrovia

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

This article doesn't seem to meet GNG. I could not find any reliable 3rd party sources discussing the subject except for a brief mention about how JB Priestley used to visit it. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 12:21, 13 February 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 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, Geography, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And Ezra Pound, until you read sources like Brooker 2004, p. 42 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrooker2004 (help) who explain that xe probably did not drink at that pub, merely lived next to it. Other than that, I kept turning up architecture books talking about a quite different building of this name designed by James William Brooker. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Brooker, Peter (2004). Bohemia in London: The Social Scene of Early Modernism. Springer. ISBN 9780230288096.
Merge to The Yorkshire Grey, where it is already named but has no additional info. A search of digitised newspapers and Google Books only shows ads for the pub, employment ads, or reports of meetings, inquests and other events that happened there. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TEXEL

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

Largely promotional/COI article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a findsources below for the earlier article title (on which there was a no-consensus move discussion, but it has been moved anyway). AllyD (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of content has been deleted since the AFD nomination. When considering whether there is any notability, it is probably better to utilise this version. AllyD (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Greenfield

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN/WP:GNG and I'm not finding enough non-primary/non-promo sources to support notability.

Source 1 – Discogs
Source 2 – The subject's website
Source 3 – Written by the subject
Source 4 – Discogs
Source 5 – Company which the subject founded

Based on the article's current sources, this was also a poor AfC accept / contested draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, and New York. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am finding and adding coverage from digitised newspapers, etc. I'll come back to !vote when I've done more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. I have added sources to the article. I do know that we don't want 7 refs after one sentence - I'll come back and add more information from those refs, and spread them out. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources added seem to support notability for a program, as opposed to the person themselves from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have now added sources and info. There are 9 reviews of his albums and 4 articles about his jazz education program, so I think he is clearly notable. There are other reviews I don't have access to (eg in Jazz Improv NY [30]) and a couple more sources I've found and might add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.texassaltwaterfishingmagazine.com/fishing/by-type/fly-fishing/staying-connected-the-nail-knot-part-1-2?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[2] ttps://castingaround.anthonynaples.com/2011/01/book-review-the-nail-knot-by-john-galligan?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[3] ttps://troutbitten.com/2019/03/06/loop-to-loop-is-bad-try-attaching-your-leader-to-the-fly-line-this-way/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

[4] ttps://www.nytimes.com/1970/12/08/archives/wood-field-and-stream-buyer-who-seeks-reels-should-beware-of.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]