WIKIDELETION

TODAY

03:16, Thursday, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Page out of date? PurgeIt!™

About this page

This page gives live feeds for today's new AfD, TfD, FfD, CfD, and WP:CP nominations. (For technical and/or other reasons, feeds for speedy deletion, MfD and PROD are unavailable.)

Some sections contain redlinks and/or are empty; this means there have been no new nominations yet today.

See also: Wikideletion Yesterday

Articles for deletion

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 08	January 10 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Capital One–Discover merger

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

This topic fails WP:GNG because it fails the second part of the test: whether it should be covered in a standalone page. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and that's all this article is. The event is ongoing and it is unknown if it will be completed, so it does not (yet) have a lasting effect under WP:NEVENT. The coverage of the merger has to date been WP:ROUTINE, another indication that this fails NEVENT. A redirect to Capital_One#Discover_Financial_Services is appropriate but was contested by the page creator so I am seeking consensus for a redirect via AfD. (Should the topic warrant a standalone page in the future, it can be restored and expanded.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Business. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Danielle Etrasco

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American lacrosse player. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Massachusetts, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

H.A.M.M.E.R.

AfDs for this article:

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

Kept in AfD 10 years ago, so prod-ineligible - but at PROD level, sigh. Pure plot summary with a few mentions of comics etc. this organization appeared in, no analysis/reception. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. We can consider redirecting this per ATD-R to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Kara Mupo

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

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

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

Oleksiy Zenchenko

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

Like others from this same team, I can't find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV on this player. The article is WP:REFBOMBed, but nothing meets the standards of WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

30 North Arlington-Kearny-Newark

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. I would normally suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99), but I don't know how plausible of a search term this is. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

24 Elizabeth/Jersey Gardens-Orange/Erie Loop

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. I would normally suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99), but I don't know how plausible of a search term this is. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

13 Nutley/Belleville/Clifton-Irvington Terminal/Valley Fair

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

I would normally suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99), but I don't know how plausible of a search term this is. JTtheOG (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Kyoya Yamada

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

Kyoya Yamada has recently retired (https://www.fagiano-okayama.com/news/202412281600/), and so with four J2 appearances, unfortunately fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: Might be coverage in JP sources, but I can't find any coverage we can use, not much of anything really. Does not meet notability. The one link used now in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

List of people from Cumbria

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

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

Viktoria Vasilieva

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep she has participated in many high-level regional competitions, and has earned metals. Article needs more sources which can be easily done. Marleeashton (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

All medals were junior-level, none of which qualify as notable per WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that the intention of these guidelines were to be overly prescriptive. I see you have nominated many gymnast articles, while they don't meet the 'more likely to receive coverage' point they should be judged individually on their merits, not mass removed because they're less likely to receive coverage. Marleeashton (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

We keep biographical articles (or not) based on whether they meet set standards for notability, not out of our personal, idiosyncratic notions as to what's important or not. Participation standards have been deprecated sports-wide, not even medalling at the Olympics is a guarantee of meeting standards, and if you believe there are valid sources that meet the GNG and provide significant coverage to the subject, proffer them. Ravenswing 06:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I couldn't find any independent WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The corresponding Russian article is also devoid of quality sources. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete. No evidence that GNG is met and no sources yet provided by keep voter.Canary757 (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Strong keep. These: [1] (Match TV), [2], [3] (both Sportbox.ru / Match TV), [4], [5] (both Sport Express), [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14] (all Sports.ru) are more than enough.
I actually spent 10 minutes on this. But you can search like this →→→ https://yandex.ru/search/?text=Виктория+Васильева if you want to find more. Find her profiles on big sports sites and then look in the "News" section or search by tag. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
These are all trivial coverage, barely a paragraph. First one talks about her partner's illness. Rest are unimpressive. I don't think we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
A note to the above voters. If you can't do a proper search, don't vote. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
A note to you; if you cannot acquaint yourself with the appropriate guidelines governing notability, don't vote at AfD. Ravenswing 06:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: A classic case of citation bombing above in utter ignorance of the provisions of the GNG and SIGCOV. The former holds "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The latter holds ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Interviews of the subject do not count. Namedrops ("Figure skater Roman Zaporozhets, who competes in pairs skating with Victoria Vasilyeva, told Match TV that the pair withdrew from the Grand Prix stage in Kazan due to his illness"), fleeting mentions and routine match coverage do not count. Lists of stats do not count. Ravenswing 06:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Sources have been brought into this discussion yesterday and an assessment would be helpful rather than a quick dismissal. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I've checked the first six sources above and the last one, there are trivial mentions, barely more than a paragraph each, simply confirming she's participated in xyz event. Oaktree b (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing found for this skater; a junior-level bronze medalist would barely make notability, IF we had extensive sourcing. With only what amount to blog posts, three lines of coverage and the like, we don't have the coverage needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Putra Adhiguna

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

I am unable to find any independent coverage of this BLP. The 15 sources cited in the article are author listings, biography listings, interviews, articles written by the subject, alumni listings, coverage from events, seminars, conferences, summits and more interviews. It is unclear what makes the subject notable or what their contributions are which could be used to assess whether any SNG is met. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, Economics, Technology, Asia, and Indonesia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV in the sources. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear editor, this below is planned to be add to outline his contribution to the energy transition field. Look forward to your advice whether this will be sufficiently relevant. Thank you.

Putra has made notable contributions to research on Southeast Asia's energy transition. His research expertise spans various aspects of the energy transition, including in outlining the key enablers and challenges for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology application (1), critical transition minerals sourcing and related industrial developments (2), as well as key factors to drive Indonesia’s energy transition (3)(4).

His perspectives on the energy sector have been regularly featured in major news outlets in the region, covering wide-ranging topics in energy such as gas investments in Southeast Asia (5), Singapore’s clean energy imports (6), and regional green energy cooperation in ASEAN (7).

His research works have also been cited in publications such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) report on Enhancing Indonesia’s Power System (8), RAND Corporation report on China’s Role in the Global Development of Critical Resources (9) and an article in Communications Earth & Environment journal (A part of Nature journal) titled The viability of co-firing biomass waste to mitigate coal plant emissions in Indonesia (10)

He was part of the team of international peer reviewers for the IEA report titled An Energy Sector Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions in Indonesia (11) and his insights and contribution has been acknowledged in International Institute for Sustainable Development publication titled Boom and Bust: The fiscal implications of fossil fuel phase-out in six large emerging economies (12)

(1) https://ieefa.org/resources/carbon-capture-southeast-asian-market-context-sorting-out-myths-and-realities-cost

(2) https://energyshift.institute/work/0-4-of-global-battery-production-capacity-indonesias-battery-and-ev-developments-are-far-out-of-step-with-its-nickel-exploitation-promise/

(3) https://ieefa.org/resources/indonesia-wants-go-greener-pln-stuck-excess-capacity-coal-fired-power-plants

(4) https://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Indonesias-Biomass-Cofiring-Bet_February-2021.pdf

(5) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/gas-investments-in-se-asia-undermine-green-energy-climate-push-report

(6) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/st-explains-s-pore-announced-more-ambitious-clean-import-targets-what-would-this-mean-for-our-energy-transition

(7) https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/583121

(8) https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/247b5328-2cd7-4fbb-a800-dd1c71f6e562/EnhancingIndonesiasPowerSystem.pdf

(9) https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2000/RRA2096-1/RAND_RRA2096-1.pdf

(10) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01588-0

(11) https://www.iea.org/reports/an-energy-sector-roadmap-to-net-zero-emissions-in-indonesia

(12) https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-07/fossil-fuel-phase-out-briics-economies.pdf

**Viewpoints and research

*Carbon Capture and Storage*

Putra’s view on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology is that it will not be easily deployed in cost-sensitive regions such as Southeast Asia (13). However, more affluent countries, such as Singapore or Japan, might be interested in exporting their carbon dioxide emissions to countries that can provide storage locations (14). Nevertheless, he advocated that such export activities will require stringent standards with clear long term liability agreements (15) (16).

(13) https://ieefa.org/articles/widespread-adoption-carbon-capture-utilization-and-storage-technologies-south-east-asia

(14) https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/singapore-japan-sign-agreement-to-collaborate-on-carbon-capture-and-storage-tech

(15) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-cannot-make-CO2-disappear-just-by-exporting-it

(16) https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2024/05/27/new-rules-set-to-kick-start-japanese-co2-exports-to-ri.html

*Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition*

His research on critical minerals primarily focused on nickel development and the battery and electric vehicle industry (2). He has advocated for more ambitious industrial developments to further enhance the role of producing countries in the battery and electric vehicle value chain (2).

Putra has also raised significant concerns about the low social and environmental standards of nickel development in Indonesia, including its implications for indigenous populations (17) and the potential use of forced labour (18). He has urged the government to conduct transparent assessments and implement improvements in these areas, as he outlined in his interviews with BBC News and Voice of America (17) (18).

(17) https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/c1e5x2k7kp8o

(18) https://www.voaindonesia.com/a/amerika-serikat-masukkan-nikel-indonesia-ke-daftar-pekerja-paksa-/7816453.html

His expertise on critical minerals in Southeast Asia is evident from his interviews featured in prominent international publications such as The New York Times (19), Barron’s (20), NPR (21), The Straits Times (22), Channel News Asia (23) and Bloomberg news (24)

(19) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/18/business/indonesia-nickel-china-us.html

(20) https://www.barrons.com/news/indonesia-bets-on-se-asia-s-first-battery-plant-to-become-ev-hub-8328fe72

(21) https://www.npr.org/2024/02/13/1231061492/a-leading-candidate-for-president-in-indonesia-wants-the-country-to-increase-coa

(22) https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/indonesia-set-to-become-ev-battery-battleground

(23) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/indonesias-industrialisation-has-fallen-short-its-regional-peers-analyst-4122381

(24) https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/international/2024/10/17/indonesias-fixer-in-chief-bows-out-as-prabowo-takes-the-helm/

*Trump election, China and Southeast Asia’s Energy Transition*

With the recent election of Trump as President of the United States, Putra has shared his views on its impact toward the Southeast Asia’s energy transition in Asia's prominent news outlet, Nikkei Asia. According to him, Trump's withdrawal from international climate agreements will have a notable impact on climate diplomacy in Southeast Asia's energy transition, although its effect on energy investments in the region will likely remain limited. (25)

In separate publications featured in China's major news outlets, Caixin and China Daily, he argued that Trump's rise to power would likely create a larger role for China in Southeast Asia's energy transition (26) (27). Major Southeast Asian countries, such as Indonesia, stand to benefit significantly from increased engagement with China due to its capacity for rapid investment deployment. However, raising the standards of Chinese overseas investments remains essential. (27) Prior, he has also commented on Xinhua News how China’s coal provinces and their rapid industrial development toward clean energy can also provide inspirations for coal reliant economies to transition to greener industries (28)

(25) https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/How-Trump-might-shake-up-Southeast-Asia-s-clean-energy-transition

(26) https://www.caixinglobal.com/2024-12-06/commentary-will-a-trump-presidency-give-china-a-bigger-role-in-southeast-asias-energy-transition-102265317.html

(27) https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202412/10/WS67579329a310f1265a1d1fb0.html

(28) https://english.news.cn/20240917/b74ec11d54c244978a5b866ba286716f/c.html

*Indonesia’s energy Transition*

Putra has also been a notable voice in outlining the key enablers and challenges in Indonesia’s energy transition. This includes highlighting the considerations for the use of biomass to generate electricity on Reuters (29) and International Monetary Fund Finance & Development Magazine (30). He has also shared his views on Indonesia’s role in the climate and energy transition in international events held by the University of Maryland (31) in College Park and United States - Indonesia Society in Washington DC (32).

His views on the use of biomass and nuclear energy in Indonesia has been featured in Channel News Asia’s feature documentary titled “Power to the People – Bioenergy” (33) and “Insight - Will Indonesia Go Nuclear” (34).

His work while at IEEFA covering the plan for the use of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) for Indonesia’s power generation (35) has been cited by Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission report on its Corruption Vulnerability Assessment (Kajian kerentanan korupsi) (36).

He has also advocated the need to transition to greener energy in the islands of the archipelago, as outlined in an Associated Press article (34). Putra has also emphasized the need to optimize international assistance such as the $20 billion funding by U.S. and its allies (35) and anticipate energy consumption growth and emissions in new sectors such as the data centres (36).

(29) https://www.reuters.com/article/business/energy/feature-betting-on-bamboo-indonesian-villages-struggle-to-source-safe-green-po-idUSL8N2LU4I6/

(30) https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2022/12/country-case-indonesia-solar-future-jacques

(31) https://cgs.umd.edu/events/indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance-open-forum-discussion

(32) https://usindo.org/feature/special-open-forum-discussion-on-indonesias-climate-future-land-energy-and-governance/

(33) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/power-people/bioenergy-4439271

(34) https://www.channelnewsasia.com/watch/insight-2022-2023/will-indonesia-go-nuclear-3029031

(35) https://www.kpk.go.id/id/publikasi-data/kajian/kerentanan-korupsi-program-gasifikasi-pembangkit-listrik-pt-pln

(36) https://apnews.com/article/business-indonesia-g-20-summit-bali-climate-and-environment-a73dcbcb60d9a42904f7d81025b5feac

(37) https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-allies-announce-20-billion-package-to-wean-indonesia-off-coal-11668503675

(38) https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/economics/article/3235499/dark-clouds-ahead-indonesias-emissions-surge-asias-need-data-centres-singapores-offshore-push 222.124.125.10 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to see at least a partial review of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak keep I think they might meet criteria 7 of WP:NPROF. NPROF applies to anyone involved in scholarly research, so I think Adhiguna's roles at policy research think tanks qualify them to be considered under NPROF. Criteria 7 is that the subject must have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", and it notes that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may qualify. Adhiguna is clearly very widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition, including in publications like the NYT, BBC and WSJ. They also seem to have had a significant impact outside of academia by using their scholarly research to inform Indonesian policymaking, including contributing to some influential reports like the IEA one and being a regular columnist on the energy transition for one of Indonesia's largest newspapers. I agree that they definitely don't meet WP:GNG, but I think they make a reasonable case under criteria 7 of WP:NPROF as an influential subject-matter expert. MCE89 (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Can you please list their 'substantial impact' and explain how they are 'very widely quoted as an expert' after you have actually read the articles from the NYT, BBC and WSJ? Also, please clarify how you determined that these quotes have meaningful impact? I believe they are merely routine/run of the mill statements. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I did read the articles. I'm not sure what you mean by routine/run of the mill statements - they are pretty clearly being quoted by each of these publications in their capacity as a subject matter expert, which is exactly what is described under 7(a) of WP:NPROF. As I said, I'm not claiming that any of these articles constitute SIGCOV or that the subject meets WP:GNG, but as someone engaged in "scholarly research" all that needs to be established is that they meet one of the seven criteria under NPROF. I think the most applicable criteria is that they have "had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity", which may be satisfied if they are "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" (note "quoted" - I'm aware that they are not a major focus of any of the articles, but they are certainly widely quoted as an expert on the Indonesian energy transition). So the reason I think they meet criteria 7 is that (a) they have been widely quoted in prominent international media outlets, including the WSJ, NYT, BBC, Reuters etc., as an expert in their area of research, satisfying 7(a) of NPROF, and (b) they have clearly influenced Indonesian policymaking in their area of research, as demonstrated by being cited or consulted on various government projects and publications. MCE89 (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So, TLDR: you actually don’t have anything meaningful or substantial to show from the NYT, BBC or WSJ articles? Instead, you’ve decided to explain NPROF#7 to me. Fascinating, but I’m still waiting for evidence of this so called ‘significant impact’.

Let's take the NYT example: Putra Adhiguna says “One way or another, Europe and the U.S. will need Indonesia nickel" and "They should be coming to this country figuring out how they can do it better." This is just a routine interview byte as he was part of Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.. They almost always comment on everything and that’s why this falls under routine coverage.

The entire article reads like a collection of his viewpoints and arguments - Putra Adhiguna emphasized this, Putra Adhiguna shared his views on that, Putra Adhiguna argued this, Putra Adhiguna commented on that - just a series of views, emphasizes, comments and arguments. Yet, there’s nothing about the work he has done or his achievements, because there aren’t any. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Maybe tone it down a bit? My point was just that all of those articles are very standard examples of what it looks like when an expert in a particular field is quoted in the mainstream press about their area of expertise, which is exactly what 7(a) describes. Yes, it's a routine interview bite, but that's what "quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" is describing. I'm not claiming that any of these sources are SIGCOV of Putra Adhiguna, but that's not what's required - NPROF specifically says that researchers may be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources". It seems like you're applying the GNG standard and asking for secondary SIGCOV of the work he has done and his achievements, but I don't think NPROF requires that at all. What I'm saying is that the fact that he is a public-facing expert who frequently comments in the international press, writes for major Indonesian newspapers and seems to have some measurable influence on policymaking processes in Indonesia is enough to show that he is "notably influential in the world of ideas" per NPROF, even without the secondary SIGCOV that would be needed to meet GNG.

We're in agreement about the absence of SIGCOV though and I don't think this is particularly productive, so let's maybe leave it there? MCE89 (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Without concrete examples of specific policies shaped by his work or recognition within academic or policy circles, it’s hard to see how his routine media mentions meet the bar set by NPROF. It seems more like he was quoted in conventional media as a person working for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis rather than as an academic expert. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I can't evaluate the wall of text and citation dump, but I can see very clearly that the subject badly fails WP:PROF: he lacks any engineering, teaching, education, or scientific degree – as well as an earned doctorate of any kind. He has never published or even written any peer-reviewed articles. He is a basically a talking head. For that, he should be evaluated using WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Many resources are not related to the subject of this biography article. Even more do not discuss this subject. More citations/resources needed that discuss this subject significantly. I'm agree with the nominator talk about this article. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 04:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully with some more time some further ability to consider the sources presented can be made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

weak keep: In addition to the quotes above, appears to be a semi-regular columnist in the Jakarta Post on energy issues. I think we can have a !weak keep for the PROF as explained aobve. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: Sorry, here [15] and [16]. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Gina Hiraizumi

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Imakuni?

AfDs for this article:

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

Very few sources exist actually covering this guy. The article's in a weird spot where he's technically a mascot/fictional character yet also a real person. Coverage on him is sparse regardless. In English there's very little on him in Books, News, and Scholar in the way of SIGCOV, and even in Japanese it's primarily just announcements of collaborations or promotional articles and the like. The current article is primarily subsisting on trivial mentions and primary sources, with little in the way of actual notability. A potential AtD could potentially be a merge to List of Pokémon characters, but I'm admittedly unsure given his unique status. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fictional elements, and Video games. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Anime and manga, Advertising, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect and/or merge to said list. He seems to be extremely niche and GNG-failing, based on the sources present. Heavy case of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Walter Irving Scott

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

Non-notable magician. No sigcov provided for this story-like article to distinguish it from a hoax. Jdcooper (talk) 01:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Magic, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete References are just random archived message board postings. Unable to find any coverage. Marleeashton (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep there are a number of book sources referenced in the article that need assessment and this entry here links to several books and listing of 2 magazine articles about him, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd welcome more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

List of NFL quarterbacks by teams beaten

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

Does not pass WP:NLIST from my perspective, and comes across as WP:Fancruft/trivia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and American football. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Article literally copies off one source to present the information, and this is usually only a headline superlative rather than something really followed closely. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Passes NLIST. [17][18][19][20][21] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Seems to be a copy of a single source, and is arbitrarily cut off at "all teams but four". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Clarityfiend's merge proposal also sounds very reasonable to me, so I'd be cool with either. No opinion on how much the list should be trimmed if we ultimately go with merge. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep if renamed List of NFL quarterbacks who have beaten every team in the league and trimmed. (Also remove the criterion "beaten every team he faced at least once", which is just made up.) It satisfies NLIST, but only for every team, not every team but n (n=1, 2, 3, etc.). This is a rare achievement which requires a QB to go to another team and then beat his former team. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Alternatively merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins, but just the half dozen QBs who have done it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  I'd support a trim and merge. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I personally don't believe the list should be trimmed to just those six players. The sources discuss a lot more players than just those six. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

If you want to trim list, it should include the six who beat all teams plus the qbs who stayed with one team throughout their career and beat all other teams (Bradshaw, Elway, ect.) Spparky (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Where are the sources that support this addition? I don't see any. (The closest I can find is that Mahomes is the youngest to beat all 31 other teams, and that's a different kettle of fish.) Otherwise, this is just an unwarranted stretching of the boundary. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Trim and merge to List of NFL individual records#Quarterback wins. Specifically, I would add a bullet for those retired QBs who have beaten all but one team if they spent their entire career with one team. This would remove Ken Stabler, Alex Smith and Kerry Collins because they played for multiple teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Kerry Collins is listed in three of the sources above though. Here is an excerpt: "Oddly, one other quarterback, Kerry Collins, beat 31 teams, but the team Collins never beat, the Dolphins, wasn’t one of the teams he played for. Collins actually started against the Dolphins four times while playing for four different teams, but lost all four games." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
I find it more notable that a QB spent their entire career with one team and beat every other team in the league (31/31) than being traded and still not beating every team in the league (31/32). Collins wouldn't be on the list of "all but one" if he had never been traded since he never beat the Dolphins. In the end, that will be a decision to be made by the closing administrator. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

You may find it more WP:interesting, but that's not what Wikipedia is based on. Sources! Where are your sources? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If sources were the only criterion, then we would have hundreds of times more articles than we do now. I was featured in my hometown newspapers covering my Eagle Scout project, so should I have a Wikipedia article? The answer is no, because I do not meet WP:GNG despite the fact I can provide sources. At what point do we stop adding names to these lists? Your argument, to me, seems more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT than putting forward any policy-based or guideline-based argument. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Your example, an article in a local paper about a local person/event, does not qualifiy as a Wikipedial source. You are confusing verifiability with notability. [Pet peeve alert: Why do you and others keep typing "::*:", "*::", etc., when the asterisk does nothing unless it is at the end?] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@Clarityfiend: You asked about my sources, so I provided a hypothetical to show that I can find sources for someone not notable (I specifically said I do not meet GNG). In reference to the pet peeve, I'm not typing the colons and asterisks. That is Wikipedia's "Reply" function probably just adding a colon to the end of whatever indenting text already exists. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Sports writers have written about QBs with wins against all teams as a group (I'm stretching just to include the two who beat the 28 then-existing teams), as demonstrated by WikiOriginal-9. None have written about all but one, with or without weird qualifiers/conditions, as a group (sorry, Collins). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:26, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep This has enough discussion in secondary sources to allow us to have an article on it. The issues above all seem like editing issues, not notability issues. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Trim and merge per Clarityfiend. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOTSTATS. Excessive niche statscruft sourced by a single outlet. Ajf773 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The sourcing currently in the article is an editing issue, there are plenty of different sources above. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Four of five of WikiOriginal-9's sources above discuss these "32-win" QBs as a group, so NLIST is satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, there is only one source currently in the article, and it's a database website, but this is clearly notable. The editing just needs to be cleaned up. Other sources include [22] [23] SportingFlyer T·C 04:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: The souces provided in this discussion, particularly the CBS Sports, NBC Sports, and Sporting News articles each cover the list as a grouping for WP:NLIST to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strongest arguments thus far are for a merger or a trimmed version, but I'm simply not seeing consensus on any of the options. Given the specific options proposed, it would be useful for future !voters to engage with them specifically.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I frankly don't think "Quarterback beat all teams but three" (or four) merits mention in an encyclopedia at all. I would merge everything above two into quarterback records. However, given the size of List of NFL individual records, and the key role played by quarterbacks in the game, I would split out a separate List of NFL quarterback records. BD2412 T 20:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

That is an arbitrary cutoff not supported by the sportswriters. Guys who are at 31 are mentioned, if at all, merely in passing and not as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: It is certainly less arbitrary than the current situation, with up to four teams listed. For reasons set forth in the discussion above, it makes sense to list those who have only failed to defeat one team because that will include those who spent their entire career with the one team that was therefore not defeated. It is no burden on the encyclopedia to list those who have defeated all but two teams just the same. BD2412 T 18:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete In my view, the fact that there is a sports news article every time someone newly meets one of this article's criteria isn't enough to establish WP:NLIST; they all just fall under WP:ROUTINE. Obscure statistics frequently appear in ROUTINE references; we can still take an intellectual assessment of the arbitrariness or cruftiness of the list and decide that it's not worthy of encyclopedic record. Aspirex (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:ROUTINE is a guideline connected to events, which doesn't apply here. Let'srun (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
"Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine." Coverage about statistical marks being broken in the moment can very much be interpreted as falling under sports scores routine. Aspirex (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? How can quarterback win records ever be construed as sports scores? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
I also want to make sure to note this is clearly, clearly not WP:ROUTINE. It's a list of statistics which have been covered by many different outlets. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I still do not see a consensus here. My instinct is to go with the Merge suggestion but there are quite a few editors arguing strongly for a Keep so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Amongst the differing views for this AfD, I see the rationale for deletion and keep being solid. However, that happens with WP:TRIVIA. This is trivia that may or may not cross the GNG threshold. I do not think the merge target really works since the record for Most NFL teams defeated at least once, career is already there, but at the same time deleting for the sake of cruft or lack of GNG may work. That being said, perhaps a no consensus may be what is determined. I would rather this article be trimmed, and written to fit some other obscure stats that probably have GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Simply put, there are enough articles on it from a variety of different sources to make it eligible for a stand-alone article. If there needs to be a merge or editorial discussion, that can happen elsewhere. SportingFlyer T·C 00:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This is quite clearly trivia from my perspective and the one possible notable portion is someone having beaten all teams but the one they played for. Sites often mention trivia, it doesn't make it notable to just be a fun fact. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Per TRIVIA, A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and unselective collection of facts or examples. This is clearly not the case here, it's clearly a very discriminate statistic. SportingFlyer T·C 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm glad that is only an opinion. I do not wish to vote on this one simply due to how this article is written and open-ended the sources are. Conyo14 (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer: Regardless of any Wiki policy or writing, this is pretty clearly just a "fun fact" / trivia. It's not something anybody actually cares about or notes in a serious capacity. It's not an accolade that's added to player record or info sections. It's just something that you go "huh, neat" to any move on from. You know why? Because wins are a team stat, not something specific to quarterbacks. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, opinions are not policy. SportingFlyer T·C 19:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I could see keeping the article as "List of NFL quarterbacks who defeated every team" and trimming it to those quarterbacks and possibly those who defeated all but one (since if you played only for one team you obviously couldn't beat that team and I have no doubt that there would be sources that such quaterbacks defeated every other team). But how is something like "quarterbacks who defeated all but four teams" anything but OR? Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
That's an editorial argument, not a notability argument. I wouldn't have any problem with trimming the list. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand why we would need a whole article for two stats when it could go in the List of NFL individual records. Conyo14 (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this qualifies for a third relisting. There seems to be a weak consensus against keeping this as a standalone article (despite some editors presenting legitimate evidence for notability) but definitely not a consensus for deletion and no consensus on how to handle some degree of merging. Closing this as no consensus seems like closing against consensus and so perhaps a third relist will provide clarity on a merge/rename/plan.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Democrates

For a concise explanation of the case for deletion of this article, see User:Twozenhauer's response to User:Liz below.

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

I humbly submit that this article may safely be either taken down, merged, or changed to a redirect. Its principal claim to notability, I believe, is the occasional misattribution of Democritus’s sayings or likeness to one Democrates.

With regard to the former, according to our article on Democritus, Diels and Kranz attribute these sayings to Democritus, and this article repeats this attribution. As for the likeness, it can hardly be denied that the bust in the picture is stamped “Democrates,” and, indeed, the Wedgwood Museum’s website seems to list the very piece here under that name; that Museum’s website is hardly informative. Now, the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a similar piece also stamped “Democrates” but clearly catalogued as “Democritus.” Did someone at the Wedgwood company repeatedly make the same mistake? This hardly seems unlikely to me, but what say my fellow editors?

I do confess that the likeness is unlike some of those we have for Democritus, as that in the Villa of the Papyri, but it is hardly unlike his representation in numerous other portraits. Indeed, the painting by Coypel, loath as we may be to accept the authenticity of so modern a vision, seems based on an old tradition; a cursory search will, I believe, at worst, reveal to anyone conflicting traditions of his appearance with, nonetheless, a bias towards that seen in the Wedgwood bust. A worker at the company might have repeatedly made the mistake of labeling the likeness "Democrates", but did Coypel, who predates it, mistake with "Démocrite"? And many other artists in the tradition of the “laughing” or “smiling philosopher”?

That he was the founder of the basic concepts of democracy is obvious nonsense. (Among other considerations, were he a contemporary of Apollonius of Tyana, he would have lived centuries after the heyday of Athenian democracy!)

Mind you, Democrates is not an invalid Greek name. There is Democrates of Aphidna, and it is also attested to in, e.g., this article about Euripides, this work of the theologian Sepulveda, and, as I gather, a genus of beetles. Indeed, Livy apparently states that a Democrates led the Tarentines at the Battle of Sapriportis, but, although the name on that article links to the page about the supposed philosopher, their biographies could hardly agree. Furthermore, the name appears on the list of Druze prophets on this page, but I can find no citations to that effect. (This last, in particular, might make me suspect a hoax, though I make no such formal accusation here!)

Even if the Democrates article gave dates significantly after the laughing philosopher, they would not account for the difference in dates between the Tarentine commander and the Druze prophet, and, even if they did, they would not account for the article’s lack of biographical detail, unless a military command and posthumous religious veneration do not qualify as notable!

But, forgive me: I understand that those links need not really enter into the argument; they were, no doubt, added in good faith, or, at least, the one from the Tarentine commander to the supposed philosopher was.

Also, regarding biographical detail, the noted epistle of Apollonius seems to me suspect as a citation, for, as we have said, Democrates is a genuine Greek name, and the mere existence of an Apollonian contemporary by that name hardly justifies the rest of the article. (Also, in fact, it is epistle 96, not 88, but that may be beside the point!)

What harm would be done by noting more fully the occasional attributions to Democrates on Democritus’s article and changing Democrates’s to a redirect to Democritus? Or perhaps a disambiguation page could disambiguate things: a link to Democrates of Ephidna, a link to Sepulveda, a link to and a note on Democritus, and a note about the military commander. Pleased to take further part in the debate but better able to leave the question to more sage considerations than my own, I am sincerely yours, Twozenhauer (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, History, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
What about the Golden Sentences/ Golden Maxims of Democrates? This seems to be attributed to him even if nothing else is? I think the disputed historicity is clearly displayed in the article, so as it stands I am happy to keep, maybe with more commentary on historicity?Spiralwidget (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Reply to Spiralwidget: Thank you for your consideration of this matter! But even considering the Golden Sentences, I am in favor of one of the options I have mentioned above. Near as I can tell, the article’s best quality is its statement that “many scholars argue that these maxims all originate from an original collection of sayings of Democritus”; granted, as the article goes on to say, “others believe that there was a different little-known Democrates whose name became confused with the much better-known Democritus.”

But with regard to the former statement, I refer my fellow editors also to this article by a scholar named Searby, which I quote here:

“The two most important sources for the ethical fragments of Democritus are Stobaeus' Anthology and the so-called ‘golden maxims of Democrates’ (a much discussed misnomer). Through a careful comparison, [the scholar Gerlach] confirms Lortzing's conclusion that Stobaeus utilized a collection of Democritus' maxims nearly identical with the pseudo-Democrates collection, which, for [Gerlach], has the methodological consequence of making Stobaeus an indirect witness to that tradition, complicated by the thematic rearrangement in the Stobaean anthology.” (emphasis mine)

But, truth be told, I have not found a tremendous amount of discussion per se; scholars seem by-and-large in agreement about “pseudo-Democrates”. Another confident attribution of the sayings to Democritus is this somewhat older piece by M. L. West.

I do not have access to the Democrates article’s cited The Atomists, Leucippus and Democritus (though it is mentioned in the Searby review cited above), but, in the article’s defense, I could advance this notice from 1925, which seems to present the attribution of Democrates to Democritus as somewhat new; but, even if I did so, I would have, at best, to advance merger of the Democrates article with that of Democrates of Aphidna: the noted dissertation by Philippson is a refutation of one Laue’s dissertation from 1921, in which the latter scholar, according to this contemporary report, advanced Democrates of Aphidna as the author of the sayings, which were apparently already widely attributed to Democritus. The report speaks of the same Philippson paper thus:

“Philippson is led to discuss the authenticity, character, and transmission of the ethical precepts of Democritus in reviewing H. Laue's dissertation . . . Laue's main contention is that the collection of precepts bearing the name of Democrates is not to be ascribed to Democritus, but to the Attic orator of that name from Aphidna. On this basis Laue tries to distinguish the style and content of the Democrates maxims from what he considers to be the genuine sayings of Democritus. Philippson points out that thirty-one precepts of the Democrates collection appear also in Stobaeus, and probably more were contained in the lost eclogues. Therefore the testimony of the Stobaeus MSS., which show the frequent occurrence of Democrates for Democritus, although the latter predominates, makes it highly probable that the author of the sayings in the above collection was Democritus. Moreover Lortzing has shown that Stobaeus obtained his Democritus precepts from the same source from which the Democrates collection was derived . . . . “ (emphases mine)

So, I submit that note of the conflicting attributions might be made on the articles for both Democritus and Democrates of Aphidna; Democrates as we have it may, I believe, be deleted or changed to a redirect, but hardly stand as it is: at very least, he is not the only Democrates, and his article’s title should not suggest that he is the standout holder of that name!

This is more by way of a postscript: Is it not also curious that the note at the beginning of the article calls him a first-century philosopher? His supposed correspondence with Apollonius would place him then, but the article goes on to say that his Ionic dialect is evidence of composition at “a very early period”; but then his possible contemporaneity with Julius Caesar seems to bring him closer to the first-century (but B. C.!) date. But this could be fixed even were the article retained. Twozenhauer (talk) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Twozenhauer, can you cut down your deletion rationale for this article to two short paragraphs and "hat" the rest of your comments in case anyone wants to read them? Because I don't anticipate any editors with the patience to wade through your entire statements here. Please be concise in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

- User:Liz, Certainly; thank you for your interest! Pardon my prolixity and my ignorance of “hats”; will the note I have placed suffice? §Scholars seem generally in agreement that the works of the supposed Democrates are in fact to be attributed to the well-known Democritus. Confusion of the names was not uncommon long ago, nor has it abated. The article as written relies upon a very few scraps of biographical detail, some conflicting and all doubtful, including its basic premise that Democrates is the author of the Golden Sayings or Sentences. Indeed, even those who question Democritus’s well-evidenced and widely-accepted authorship have only this premise on which to build a biography of a man who probably did not exist as such. The lone ready exception is a scholar who gives authorship of the Sayings to Democrates of Aphidna, who has an article with us. §I submit that the article on "Democrates" be deleted or changed to a disambiguation page: Pseudo-Democrates, the scholarly moniker by which the uncertain author of the Sayings is sometimes called, could be among the bullets; Democritus, too, with Democrates noted as a probable misspelling; Democrates of Aphidna could make another. On the articles for the latter two, a note about possible authorship of the Sayings could easily be slipped in. Twozenhauer (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. While the historicity of Democrates and authorship of his Golden Sayings are the subject of debate, that alone makes this a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia. While some scholars attribute this work to Democritus, or to a different Democrates, others evidently do not. A sentence from the original article on which this one was based says that the identification of Democrates with Democritus is a mistake resulting from confusion between similar names. Is it? Wikipedia can cover the debate, but shouldn't be taking sides. Even if Democrates could be convincingly shown to be a phantom—which this article certainly does not do—the long discussion over whether he existed would still be worthy of coverage, and presumably under this title, since it would be a significant digression for a single work of Democritus. P Aculeius (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm considering giving out barnstars to any experienced editors willing to assess all of the commentary here. Thank you!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pioneer Fund (Venture Capital Firm)

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

Non-notable venture capital firm. No sources I could find that satisfy general notability or NCORP, not to mention the handful of low quality ones listed in the article, which range from self-published to routine. The TechCrunch ones are about a third party and not the firm itself. PK650 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Canada, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

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

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

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

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

War Eagle, Arkansas (film)

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

I am nominating this as this article doesn't meet notability. Even its Rotten Tomatoes entry shows only one review. As well the article was written by HannoverHouse, who was a distributor for the film. source. So this article was also meant to be an advertisement. GamerPro64 01:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Arkansas. GamerPro64 01:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. One review in Rotten Tomatoes, already linked in article, and I found another top of the search in Ebsco (War Eagle, Arkansas. By: Kaplan, Paul, Library Journal 2/1/2012, Vol. 137, Issue 2) as well as a note that it won Best Feature Film at the Connecticut Film Festival in 2008 (Soule, Alexander. Film fest ends run. Fairfield County Business Journal. 6/9/2008, Vol. 47 Issue 23, p2). Proquest also came up with 71 hits for the quoted title; from the first few there are two video reviews (Keogh, T. The Video Librarian; (Jan 1, 2012) & Anonymous. Library Journal; Vol. 137, Iss. 2, (Feb 01, 2012)), another review of the film (no text; Ratcliff, Ashley. Home Media Magazine; Vol. 33, Iss. 46, (Nov 14-Nov 20, 2011): 30.), and some details on a film festival showing in the New York Times (A Film Festival That Showcases the Disabled. New York Times Sep 16, 2008.). Generally where that much coverage falls on the first few hits there's a lot more to be found on digging. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Chakobsa (Dune)

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

The notability for this stub article about a fictional language relies on its use in two films, and I don't see significant growth potential. The entry at Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology#C is an acceptable redirect destination, and already includes the primary two sentences of content. I'm dubious about the notability of the newly added Phonology information, but even if it and other possible sourced additions are deemed as notable, this minor subtopic is more appropriate in Dune (franchise)#Additional linguistic and historic influences than as its own article. — TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Language. — TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect per nom. Not much in the way of coverage, but perfectly slottable into a larger article where it can be better covered. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep per WP:GNG. This is a notable conlang used in two notable films (Dune and Dune: Part Two). The fact that the article is a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. See WP:TOOSHORT: Wikipedia has many stubs. These should not be deleted for this reason but should be marked as stubs. Even if the 'article' is really a dictionary entry, if there is published, reliable evidence of even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept. Khiikiat (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect for now. Some mention in NYT but not seeing 'Chakobsa' in NYorker. GS query shows some passing mentions. If anyone thinks this is notable (which is possible but not guaranteed), the burden is on them to show it with sources, not vague claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sommer Ray

AfDs for this article:

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

Her page is barebones and you can't expand it with anything that isn't promo content. She clearly isn't notable enough. Strawberries1 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sport of athletics, Internet, and Colorado. SK2242 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment @Strawberries1: For future AfDs, you may want to make sure that this is transcluded on the log page and that you notify the article's creator. I’ve done that for you this time, but there are also instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO. SK2242 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak Keep - The sourcing isn’t amazing (People Magazine being the best one there) but it scrapes past WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Weak keep per SK2242. A hard one to assess because there's so much coverage of her, it's just than 99% of it is useless garbage. But agree that there's enough in marginally reliable sources that she probably scrapes past WP:GNG. Hard to tell whether all of these meet WP:RS, but here are a few more articles about her that at least have a bylined reporter and seem not terrible: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] MCE89 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Templates for discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 January 9

Files for discussion

Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 January 9

Categories for discussion

January 9

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Winners of Eurovision Young Musicians

Propose renaming Category:Winners of Eurovision Young Musicians to Category:Eurovision Young Musicians winners

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with related categories (e.g. Category:Eurovision Song Contest winners, Category:Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners, Category:Melodifestivalen winners) Sims2aholic8 (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: this is not a deletion nomination. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: See comment below D4NT3023 D4NT3023 (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@D4NT3023: This is not a deletion nomination, this is a renaming nomination. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Rename. I see that there's a whole bunch more such subcategories of Category:Music competition winners that need renaming, by the way. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep/Neutral on Name Clicking through these articles, I don't think most of these people would even be notable enough for a Wikipedia article without winning this. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I realized that if I relisted the associated contestants category, then this one should also be relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Category:Diplomatic missions in Santiago, Chile

Propose merging Category:Diplomatic missions in Santiago, Chile to Category:Diplomatic missions in Chile

Nominator's rationale: only 1 entry. Also propose merging with Category:Buildings and structures in Santiago, Chile LibStar (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Dual merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

January 9

T:Uw-move3

T:Uw-move3 → Template:Uw-move3 (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Unnecessary new T: space redirect which will occupy mainspace alongside other articles. No incoming links. TM:Uw-move3 works just fine to navigate to the template in shortform. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ROWN

Wikipedia:ROWN → Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Confusing shortcut/redirect that looks too much like WP:OWN and several other shortcuts already exist that do the job. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Others that exist that already help, so that this confusing/misleading one does not need to exist and should not exist, include:WP:ONLYREVERT, WP:REVERTRARELY, WP:RVONLYNEC. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Nancy Khalaf

Nancy Khalaf → Swimming at the 1988 Summer Olympics (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target page does not mention this person. LibStar (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Lebanon at the 1988 Summer Olympics where she is mentioned. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pop philosophy

Pop philosophy → Pseudophilosophy (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

It is not clear that this is directly relevant to the target, and it is not mentioned there. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

2023 Dolphins season (Disambiguation) and etc.

2023 Dolphins season (Disambiguation) → 2023 Dolphins season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Eidi (Disambiguation) → Eidi (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Indic languages (Disambiguation) → Indic languages (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Late Again (Disambiguation) → Late Again (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Lusarreta (Disambiguation) → Lusarreta (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Matheus Pereira (Disambiguation) → Matheus Pereira (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Northern Bears (Disambiguation) → Northern bears (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Northern bears (Disambiguation) → Northern bears (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Object-orientation (Disambiguation) → Object-orientation (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
P90 (Disambiguation) → P90 (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
PBA (Disambiguation) → PBA (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
Progressive Christianity (Disambiguation) → Progressive Christianity (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It should be said, that uppercase letters being used in a disambiguator in article titles is generally equally likely as lowercase letters in article titles to be searched for by unfamiliar users, in my opinion. However, per MOS:DAB and WP:DAB, disambiguation pages are not articles.

Uppercase versions of parenthetically disambiguated words may be useful in navigation to a particular article title about a "foo" versus a "Foo", and whichever way is comfortable to readers. In this case though, "(disambiguation)" is the tag we use to indicate a disambiguation page, which happens to reside in mainspace, a location it shares with regular articles which can also include parenthetical disambiguations to distinguish them. It is not helpful nor useful to have an uppercase variant as a redirect to this type of help page, of which there are hundreds of thousands of disambiguation pages in quantity.

Thus is the nomination. As it happens though, I did (what I found to be) an interesting query to determine, based on Jarry1250's findings in 2007, to find which of these common disambiguation terms have uppercase disambiguator redirect variants being used in the year 2025. These findings are posted in the similarly named User:Utopes/findings. I think it's pretty interesting to compare the existences of uppercase disambiguators to see which disambiguators are used more frequently as uppercase ("Album" and "TV Series" sweep this competition), as well as the ratios between total usage and uppercase usage. The resulting ratio may be ~juuust about equal to the same ratio with 2010-2025 titles added in, but I have not been able to fully confirm this because the queries for 2025 have taken far too long 😅 and using 2007-2009 works as an example.

By looking at the ratios, we note some interesting outliers that don't really matter to this nomination, but are intriguing to think about regardless imo. Such as how "(TV Series)" disambiguators in 2025 exist at an ~approx 2:5 ratio with the correctly named "(TV series)" pages from 2009. Maybe because there's already two capital letters, people feel like adding a third? But perhaps even more shockingly is the popularity of "(Number)" which exceeds the number of "(number)" pages from 2009, at a 1.04:1 ratio. Fwiw, if someone wants to replicate this examination for 2025 numbers that could also be interesting (because I tested it for "(number)" and of course the ratio dropped back down, but 360 appearances of "(Number)" in a title is still quite fascinating to me).

Nevertheless, it seems there is already an overwhelming trend in the dissolution of "(Disambiguation)" disambiguation pages. Compared to the 26k disambiguation pages of 2009, only 15 of which uppercase versions exist in 2025. (3 of the 15 are Ø (Disambiguation). 12 becomes the more accurate number, for an even smaller proportion & also is the number of redirects in this nomination). This contrasts the rest of the common disambiguations, such as "(Album)", "(Song)", or "(Band)", whose uppercase variants seem to be otherwise mainly harmless, and also reflect an infinite possibility of disambiguators that could be used instead which could be upper or lowercase. But "(Disambiguation)" is not how we do disambiguation pages. These are not regular articles, because they are not articles, meaning that we don't particularly require modification variation redirects to reach them. They are, what they are, for what they are. (These are otherwise a bad practice with very little apparent consensus, so delete these to sweep the lot.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep all: Clear plausible miscapitalizations. Considering you hold the shift key to get a bracket on most keyboards, it'd be very easy to hold it a slight bit too long and end up capitalizing the first letter. Also, redirects are WP:CHEAP and these do no harm, so I see no reason to delete them. I also don't see the number of them in existence as being a contributing factor towards deletion, it doesn't make them less useful or more harmful in any way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: harmless. C F A 01:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment: It should be noted that all of these were created in 2024 or later, because the last bundle of these were all deleted in 2022 at the most recent RfD of this type. Therefore none of this bundle has substantial history, and all were the result of errors fixed immediately with the exception of 2. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
There were also RfD noms that resulted in keep prior to the mass nomination, in which those previously kept redirects ended up deleted for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me. I'm of the mindset those ended up deleted more on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. I was kind of surprised to see this notification on my talk page because I agree, this is obviously an error. Bobby Cohn (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity, I created a few of these and it was definitely intentional @Bobby Cohn. It's fine if you think these should be deleted, but I wanted to be clear that they're not necessarily clearly errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

KPSR (FM)

KPSR (FM) → KPRD (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned in target. Cannot find any sources referring to the target this way. Rusalkii (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep The Praise Network owns a fourth full-power FM facility, KPSR (FID 767452), at Smith Center, Kansas. The station was authorized with a license to cover last month and then immediately went off the air. The request for silent STA reads,

The station completed construction of the facility on October 31, 2024 and filed License to Cover application on November 1, 2024. Upon activation of the transmission system, it was found that harmful interference was being caused to collocated WISP antennas on the tower. Reduced power was attempted, but it was determined that KPSR must cease operation pending the replacement of cables for the WISP. Troubleshooting and repairs cannot be made in a timely manner and the station is formally filing request for Silent Authority until such time as the interference can be mitigated.

The facility is authorized and has been added to the full-power repeaters table. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
I think without any context on this in the target it's confusing to have on station redirect to another with no explanation. Rusalkii (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
This is normal for this type of facility, especially a non-commercial educational radio network (either Christian or public). There isn't a lot of content about KVHL in Texas Public Radio, but that is where it should redirect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, as MfD uses subpages for the nominations like AfD but places them within the process's main page.

Speedy deletion

See Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Proposed deletion

See Category:Proposed deletion as of 9 January 2025.

Copyright problems

9 January 2025

Pure (programming language) (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://codedocs.org/what-is/pure-programming-language MimirIsSmart (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)